Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Major A. S. L. YOUNG) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (WAR SITUATION)

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of recent Japanese advances whether he has any statement to make on the Chinese war situation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The recent Japanese advance towards Kweiyang constituted a grave menace to our Chinese Allies, and I feel sure that the House will wish to express their confidence in them in this fresh trial in their eighth year of war. The public declarations of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek show that the challenge has been met with undaunted spirit and His Majesty's Government affirm their solidarity with him in the measures which he and his able American collaborator, General Wedemeyer, are taking. I am glad to say, however, that, for the time being at all events, the situation is easier, as the Japanese have withdrawn for some distance from the furthest point which they had reached. Meanwhile, outside

China, Chinese troops have themselves made a notable contribution by the capture of Bhamo. I should add that the complete defeat of Japan, and thus the liberation of China, is being hastened by the blows dealt to the common enemy by the forces under the command of Admiral Mountbatten in Burma and by those under the command of Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur in the Pacific.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if steps are now being taken to equip the Chinese troops to a greater extent than they have been equipped in the past?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows that everything in the power of the Allies will be done. The problem is very largely one of transport—of getting the stuff there.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (SITUATION)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the forces of E.D.E.S. in Greece have surrendered their arms; and, if so, to whom.

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the date originally fixed for the demobilisation of the guerrillas, both E.L.A.S. and E.D.E.S., was 10th December. General Zervas expressed his complete willingness to abide by the Greek Government's orders for demobilisation. The demobilisation of the guerrillas must clearly await a settlement of the present disturbances.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend make it clear whether E.D.E.S. have actually surrendered their arms? They have expressed their willingness to do so, but has it actually taken place?

Mr. Eden: The position is that both sides agreed to surrender their arms by a certain date. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, before that date was reached, the disturbances broke out which are now taking place, and, clearly, what we must secure is the disarmament of all, not of some.

Mr. Lipson: Does it mean that the fact that E.L.A.S. have not disarmed makes it not necessary for E.D.E.S. to obey the Government's orders now?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend can surely see the position. For several days, before


the date agreed upon by all to surrender their arms, these disturbances broke out, and, unhappily, therefore, the agreement was broken. It will be necessary for us to make another agreement, but the object of His Majesty's Government is that all these irregular bands shall be disarmed altogether.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister if there is now complete co-operation and accord between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. with regard to the policy at present being pursued by His Majesty's Government in Greece.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The burden of attending to the troubles in Greece has fallen upon Great Britain, and we have not so far been able to discharge this task without criticism even here at home, which has added to our difficulties. The three great Powers are in entire agreement upon the general aims which bind our alliance and we have every need to keep in the closest association in this dangerous and momentous phase of the war.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my right lion. Friend agree that there is a danger to the implementing of the proposals of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, if certain Powers assign to themselves spheres of influence and other Powers are not brought into co-operation, even during the war, on these important matters?

The Prime Minister: That is a topic with which, obviously, I should not attempt to deal now.

Mr. Shinwell: After the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the original Question, will he say whether there is, in fact, complete co-operation?

The Prime Minister: There is complete co-operation, but whether there is complete agreement on every aspect of this matter is another question altogether. I have not the slightest doubt that effective co-operation will go on, in all aspects of the war. We had a certain task thrown upon us, and we are discharging it to the best of our ability.

Mr. Lipson: Are His Majesty's Government taking steps to try to bring about greater co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I think it would certainly be a justifiable conclusion to form at this stage.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister what terms for an armistice have been offered to E.A.M.

The Prime Minister: This Question was to have been answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with Question No. 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).
[To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the negotiations between the British authorities, the Greek Government and the representatives of the resistance organisations in Greece.]

Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. When Question No. 9 was called, the hon. Member was not present.

The Prime Minister: It was arranged that my right hon. Friend should answer the Question. I now gather that the hon. Gentleman who put it down was unfortunately not in his place, and I had not prepared myself to answer that Question.

Mr. Bellenger: Let the Foreign Secretary answer it.

The Prime Minister: I would like to see what I am reading out lest I should make a mistake.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As it is customary, if a first Question is not called, for two Questions on the same subject to be answered on the subsequent Question, would it not be in Order for the Foreign Secretary now to answer Question No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that, as the first Question was not asked, it cannot, therefore, be answered.

Sir Herbert Williams: Surely a Minister cannot evade answering a Question on the Paper because it is linked up with another Question which has not been asked?

Mr. Magnay: If hon. Members miss their turn, let them wait.

Mr. Lipson: I was in my place when Question No. 9 was called.

The Prime Minister: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, Would it be in Order for my right hon. Friend to answer in my place?

Mr. Speaker: That is really slightly out of Order, but I am prepared to agree.

Mr. Eden: May I answer the Question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Eden: Full accounts have appeared in the Press of negotiations between General Scobie and the E.A.M. leaders for an armistice. At a meeting between General Scobie and a representative of E.A.M. Committee on 12th December, General Scobie stipulated that the E.L.A.S. forces must carry out his orders as troops placed under his command by the Caserta Agreement, These orders were and remain to evacuate Attica. In addition, orders must be issued to all E.L.A.S. supporters in Athens and the Piraeus to cease resistance and hand in their arms. General Scobie made it clear that as soon as these requirements were fulfilled he would inform Field-Marshal Alexander, who would initiate the necessary steps to put an end to the present turmoil in Greece and to restore to all Greeks, whatever their opinions, peaceful enjoyment of their democratic principles. In their reply, which was received on 16th December, the E.A.M. Committee agreed to withdraw the E.L.A.S. forces from Attica, but did not refer to General Scobie's other condition that their followers in Athens and Piraeus should cease resistance and hand in their arms. General Scobie has informed them that this condition must be fulfilled before an armistice can be granted.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if his answer means that, if E.A.M. accept the terms of an armistice, General Alexander will accept responsibility for seeing that order is restored in Greece?

Mr. Eden: I think the position is quite clear that, if these terms are accepted, then we shall do our best to ensure for the Greek people a Government of their choice, and also a free election, and a decision in respect of their constitution.

Mr. Riley: Do I understand that negotiations are still proceeding; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great anxiety in this country to see an armistice arranged at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Eden: Everybody in this country, naturally, wants this situation brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. As regards the first part of the question,

I do not know whether a further reply is forthcoming from E.A.M. I have only seen statements in the Press that that may be so.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Left Wing or so-called resistance movements do agree to the terms laid down by General Scobie, is there any assurance that they will be subsequently protected, in an unarmed condition, against Right Wing elements who may still be in possession of their arms? Is there any guarantee of that kind?

Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take every precaution in that respect. It is not our desire that as a result of this business there should be victimisation, either of one side or the other. Our desire is, that as soon as this is over, there should be an amnesty and that the Greeks should have a chance to live their own life again, in peace and harmony.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCO-SOVIET TREATY

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government were informed of the terms of the Franco-Soviet Treaty before publication; and whether he was satisfied that the new features in the Treaty in no way conflict with the security organisation agreed at Dumbarton Oaks.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government were consulted before negotiations began on the Franco-Soviet pact and they replied that they welcomed the idea of a Franco-Soviet pact similar to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty as an additional link between the Great European Allies. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the preamble to the Franco-Soviet Treaty which expressly records the joint conviction of the two Governments that the maintenance of peace in the future will require the closest collaboration with all the United Nations and their joint determination to collaborate in the creation of an international system of security. It seems clear that there is therefore no question of any conflict between the Franco-Soviet Treaty and the future World Security Organisation, which all parties are agreed in wishing to establish.

Miss Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the full text of the Treaty is to be published, without any reservations?

Mr. Eden: The whole text of the Treaty has already appeared in the Press.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether it is the case that the Dumbarton Oaks arrangement is not binding on anybody, and is it the case that it has not been ratified by the Senate of the United States?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I said it was.

Mr. Astor: Is there any prospect that this Treaty will be completed by an Anglo-French Treaty, too?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED COUNTRIES (U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the need for supplies to reach Yugoslavia and France and the disinclination of liberated countries to avail themselves of the services of U.N.R.R.A., he will discuss with the U.S.A. the desirability of offering the accumulated supplies direct to the Governments concerned without the U.N.R.R.A. organisation.

Mr. Eden: There is no question of U.N.R.R.A. withholding supplies from France. Nor would I agree that the liberated countries are disinclined to avail themselves of the services of U.N.R.R.A., except in so far as those which are in a position to pay with foreign exchange for their relief supplies naturally prefer to do so. As regards France, supplies have been accumulated by the Allied military authorities and by the French Provisional Government itself. Such immediate problems as exist relate less to the provision of further supplies than to the transportation of the full amount of supplies already available or potentially available, especially in view of the heavy demands on transport facilities for military needs at the front. As regards Yugoslavia, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I should have given earlier to-day to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).

Miss Ward: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the first half of his answer does not, in fact, apply to Yugoslavia?

Mr. Eden: I am sorry, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), who has a Question on the Paper on this subject—[8. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether an agreement has yet been reached between U.N.R.R.A. and Marshal Tito regarding the distribution of food, clothing and other necessities, to the civil population in Yugoslavia.]—is not here, and I did not have the chance to read the answer. Approximately, the position is that discussions on the matter are going on, and we hope that agreement will be reached shortly.

Mr. Petherick: Could the right hon. Gentleman make some statement in the rather near future about U.N.R.R.A. and Yugoslavia, because there is a relief organisation which is asking for money for relief to Yugoslavia, and the implication is that U.N.R.R.A. is no good and is doing no work there?

Mr. Eden: As I say, I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who had a Question down, is not here, so that I could not give some more information. Perhaps I could read the answer to that Question. It is:
Arrangements are at present being discussed between the Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean and the Yugoslav authorities for the despatch of relief supplies prepared by the allied military authorities. These arrangements contemplate the early transfer to U.N.R.R.A. of the responsibility for providing relief, in accordance with the common wish of all concerned.

Mr. G. Strauss: May I ask whether any difficulties have arisen, as has been suggested, with the authorities in Yugoslavia, and, if so, what they are?

Mr. Eden: I think the position is now being straightened out, but I would rather not answer that question without notice. For the first few months, these relief problems are a military responsibility; then they are transferred to U.N.R.R.A., and that is what is now contemplated.

Miss Ward: Will there be any shipping available for Yugoslavia?

Mr. Eden: All shipping forms part of these arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Station, Italy (Welfare Arrangements)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at a certain small town in Italy, of which the name and particulars have been sent him, where large numbers of British and American Air Forces and other Forces are stationed there is a deficiency of arrangements for the recreation and comfort of the men during their leisure hours; and will he consider remedying this.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I have asked for a report on the welfare arrangements at the town referred to, and will communicate with the hon. Lady in due course.

Uniform (Observer's Badge)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air why he has issued instruction for discontinuing the wearing of the single wing, the observer's badge of the R.F.C., in the last war.

Sir A. Sinclair: Officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force who are qualified to wear the observer's badge are at liberty to do so, unless they are employed in some other aircrew category, when they wear the badge which is then appropriate.

Mr. Granville: Does that mean that they are entitled to wear it, if they are in the Army at the present time; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these single wings were awarded for operations, and that there are very few of these gallant men left from the last war; and will he make representations to the Secretary of State for War?

Sir A. Sinclair: If the officer is wearing Royal Air Force uniform, of which this badge forms part, the answer is "Yes."

Mr. Granville: I asked if my right hon. Friend would make representations to the Secretary of State for War on this question, because I think a Regulation has been issued by him.

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; because the Secretary of State for War is not responsible for the Royal Air Force, and these badges are part of the Royal Air Force uniform.

Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has any statement to make on the disappearance of Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory.

Sir A. Sinclair: I much regret that the extensive search and inquiries which have been made have not established the cause of the loss of Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory's aircraft or the fate of the occupants.

Captain Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend not say where this disaster took place, in view of the fact that the Germans claim to have shot the plane down?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; I cannot answer the first part of the question. A court of inquiry has been held and has investigated the circumstances most carefully, and it is not possible to give an answer to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I do not think there is the slightest substance in the German claim. My hon. and gallant Friend might have mentioned that it was supposed to have been shot down by a new type of long-range fighter, but we know that the Germans possess no new type of long-range fighter.

Mr. Leach: Is this officer presumed to to be dead?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; six months have to elapse before it is possible officially to presume death.

Overseas Service (Home Posting)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to make known to the airmen concerned that periods of service in the Sudan, Aden or Iraq, up to a maximum of two years, will be reckoned as time and a half towards qualification for transfer to the home establishment.

Sir A. Sinclair: The tour of duty in the Sudan, Aden, and Iraq is two years followed by one year in another overseas command. Time spent in those areas does not count as time and a half for return to the home establishment. Owing to an unauthorised instruction, however, a number of airmen were led to believe that this was the practice. Authority has accordingly been given for their cases to receive special consideration if they apply to be returned to the United Kingdom on the dates they had been led to expect.

Sir J. Mellor: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking in order that these airmen shall know their position?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think they do know it. They have been told that they can come home after this time. It is not in accordance with regulations, but if they make the claim, as I said, it will be considered.

Sir J. Mellor: Have not a large number of these airmen been scattered? Will they have an opportunity of knowing what my right hon. Friend has said?

Sir A. Sinclair: Of course they have had the unauthorised instruction. I cannot find them and chase them, for the very reason that my hon. Friend has given—that they are scattered all over the world.

Bombing Operations (Historic Buildings)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give an assurance that instructions have been given to all Allied Forces engaged in bombing operations to spare, as far as possible, cathedrals and other buildings of historic and artistic value; and that information regarding the nature and location of such buildings is regularly supplied to those in charge of bombing operations.

Sir A. Sinclair: The utmost precautions are taken to protect from damage all buildings of historic and artistic value, in so far as this is consistent with military necessity.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reply to the latter part of the Question—as to whether there is a regular system of giving instructions to the airmen so that they will know just where these buildings are?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, where it is practicable to do that. Quite frankly, it is not practicable in attacking German targets, but in attacking these tactical targets in Italy, small towns and centres of communication, where there are valuable buildings, it is possible.

Mr. Driberg: Have any such special instructions been given with regard to the Parthenon?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot answer that without notice.

Mr. Driberg: It is very important.

Miss Rathbone: Why is it impossible to do this in the case of buildings in Germany, which are of enormous interest to the whole world, such as Freiberg Cathedral?

Sir A. Sinclair: As the House knows perfectly well, we are attacking every German war industry and transport on a large scale, and it would be humbug for me to come to the House and say that such a system of instruction would be practicable.

Aircraft Production (Contract, Bolton)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why Messrs. Phillips of Blackburn are permitted to place contracts on behalf of his Ministry; and why a contract for over £1,200 for work in Bolton was given to a Salford firm when a local firm, under the same specifications, tendered for £830 and had local labour available.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The company, who are contractors to my Department, are authorised to occupy and use requisitioned premises, and it is the practice to permit occupiers to place, on my behalf, contracts for approved adaptations to premises. The company were authorised to accept the lowest of three tenders submitted by them; the price was not £1,200, but slightly in excess of £1,000. The statement that a lower tender was sent to the company is under investigation, and I will communicate with the hon. Member when it is concluded.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that the company which quoted the lower tender have been told that they could not have the contract, because they were too dear?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of that; the inquiry is now being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if further attempts have been made to secure a more satisfactory percentage of electoral registrations by officers and men in the Merchant Navy; and approximately what percentage of these have now completed the necessary form.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir, the importance of filling in the declaration forms required for electoral registration has been constantly drawn to the attention of members of the Merchant Navy by the officers of my Department who deal with the engagement and discharge of crews. It has also been emphasised in a broadcast to seamen and in the journals of the officers' and men's societies. In spite of these efforts, however, only six per cent. of those eligible to register have so far done so.

Mr. Driberg: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will continue to re-intensify his efforts to increase this very unsatisfactory percentage, and also whether the forthcoming conference will be competent to consider the possibility of direct, instead of proxy, voting for seamen overseas?

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the second point, I would not like to make an unconsidered answer. On the first, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the matter and for his questions, which certainly help. I would be very glad to do anything further which was practicable, but I cannot think of any other measures to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES (MAINTENANCE)

Mr. Jewson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can now arrange for the better servicing of railway engines, with a view to reducing the waste of time arising from trains not running to schedule.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am satisfied that railway locomotives are being maintained as well as the shortage of labour and the continuing pressure of war-time traffic now allow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEASED CADET'S EFFECTS (LOSS)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport in what circumstances the personal effects of Cadet Dennis Cox, killed in action on 15th August, 1943, were lost somewhere between Glasgow and London while in transit from Algiers to Halesworth, Suffolk.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that I have not yet completed the inquiries which I am making into the loss of Cadet Cox's effects. If the hon. Member will put down his Question after Christmas, I shall hope to answer it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Departmental Services (Continuance)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information if the dissolution of his Ministry is to take place at the end of the war against Germany or at the end of the war against Japan; and if he will circulate in HANSARD a statement showing which Departments will be responsible after that event for those activities of his Ministry, such as the information services in America, the Crown Film Unit, the publication of official pamphlets, and the War-Time Social Survey, which are likely to be of permanent value.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I am afraid that I do not know the answer to this Question until it is decided for me. It is unusual for victims to select the date for their own execution.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon Friend aware that we always view with interest and concern his desire for suicide? Has he not consulted with those who are responsible? Could he not at least answer the latter part of the Question?

Mr. Bracken: No, Sir, I have given the hon. Gentleman a most comprehensive answer.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all want to attend the funeral, and would like to have due notice?

Hansard Copies (Postal Censorship)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Information whether he will give instructions that copies of HANSARD, sent by hon. Members to addresses oversea through the postal service, are not to be stopped by the censorship.

Mr. Bracken: It is no function of the censorship to prevent the despatch of HANSARD to addresses overseas. But there are certain countries to which printed documents can only be sent if they are despatched through booksellers,


publishers or stationers who hold permits. These permits are freely granted. I understand that the Sale Office will always despatch copies of HANSARD overseas on behalf of hon. Members who ask them to do so.

Professor Savory: Is it the British censor or the Eire censor who stops HANSARD from reaching Southern Ireland?

Mr. Bracken: I shall have to make inquiries into the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. I. Thomas: Could my right hon. Friend say which are the countries—if the list is not very long—especially as Form P.C.177 says that permits shall be granted to private individuals only in very exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Bracken: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question down, and I will give him some answer about Form P.C.177.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that HANSARD can always be sent to men in the Forces serving overseas?

Mr. Bracken: I hope soon to be able to make a statement about the very entangling difficulties of censorship, but I will look into the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Parliamentary News Broadcast

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Information if his attention has been drawn to the partisan nature of the report in the 9 p.m. B.B.C. news on Friday, 8th December, of that day's proceedings in this House; and what action he proposes to take to prevent such reports in future.

Mr. Bracken: I have read the report through carefully without discovering on which side the hon. and gallant Member supposes the B.B.C. to have shown partiality.

Wing-Commander James: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that reporting in full, for example, a personal attack on the King of Greece by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and then the reply both of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is asking for an opinion, not for information.

British Publicity (Russia and United States)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information whether any restriction has been imposed by the authorities in Russia or the U.S.A. on facts, news or views circulated by his Ministry to these two countries respectively.

Mr. Bracken: The arrangements differ in the two countries. In the U.S.A. the work of this Ministry is subject to the provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but subject to that, the authorities do not interfere with the circulation of facts, news or views by the British Information Services. In the U.S.S.R. our work does not proceed except with the agreement of the authorities concerned, but I can say at once that they have placed no restrictions on the content of our newspapers, the "British Ally" and the "British Chronicle."

Sir T. Moore: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back after his recent indisposition, may I ask whether, in view of the recent misunderstandings which have taken place in regard to our news and views, the right hon. Gentleman would regard it as a matter of supreme importance to ensure that as wide a circulation of our views and news as possible takes place in these two countries of our Allies?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir, but let no one think that the Ministry of Information can remove the misunderstandings that exist between the United Nations.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Information to what extent shorts and feature films produced under the auspices of his Ministry are shown in the U.S.A. and Russia.

Mr. Bracken: Short and feature length films produced by this Ministry are widely shown in the United States in the public cinemas and elsewhere. In the U.S.S.R. the conditions are different as performances in the public cinemas normally make no provision for short films. British news reel items are regularly shown in the public cinemas. Ministry short films are being shown at private performances to an increasing extent.

Sir T. Moore: As this country has shown an increasing interest in Russian short films, and gives a great welcome to them when shown, could that be used, if I may suggest it, as a bargaining feature with the Soviet so as to get more British shorts shown throughout Russia?

Mr. Bracken: I have no complaint about the showing of British shorts to Russia, but they are only shown to private audiences. Nor can I say anything but words of praise for the co-operation we have had from the Russian authorities in British publicity matters.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the great success of shorts and documentaries in the United States will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Crown Film Unit is kept in being when other parts of his Ministry are closed down?

Mr. Bracken: That is a matter for the Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Prototype Houses

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for specimens of new types of houses, designed by private firms and bodies, to be erected at Northolt to enable Members of Parliament and others interested to compare the various types.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Sandys): The policy hitherto adopted has been to allow trade federations to erect at Northolt prototypes of houses suitable for general use. I am prepared to consider some extension of these facilities to private firms.

Mr. Astor: Will the Minister realise that the position is very difficult at the moment? People have to go all over the country to see these important new developments, and it would immensely help us if they could all be brought together.

Mr. Sandys: I agree. I am, of course, in favour of making comparisons of these various new types as easy as possible for those concerned, but there is some limit to the number of houses we can build on this one site.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Works whether he has embodied in the prototype houses at Northolt, the new and

economical types of grates and stoves evolved by the Coal Research Association.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. The houses in question were erected to demonstrate new designs and building methods, and not internal fittings.

Mr. Astor: Would it not be better to put in the most modern and economical coal fires, where there are coal fires, in these houses, and will the Minister make the necessary change as soon as he can?

Mr. Sandys: I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend's suggestion. When further prototype houses come to be constructed I hope to include some of these new types of appliances.

Sir Alfred Beit: In so far as some of these houses will be for urban use will my right hon. Friend, in the interests of smoke abatement, see that they are fitted with other types of heating than coal fires?

Bomb Damage Repair

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to study the methods used by the American troops who are engaged in demolition and repair in London; and in all respects where these methods prove speedier than our own will he take steps to have them adopted.

Mr. Sandys: In this matter as in so many others, we and our American Allies are pooling our knowledge and experience.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the Minister again examine this question? Is it not unfair to suggest that the Americans are teaching our workers anything? They have the best tackle possible, but they are not plastering houses or putting in windows, which is essential to Londoners.

Mr. Sandys: I think they are all getting on very well together, and I regret any attempt to make invidious comparisons.

Mr. Astor: Without making any invidious comparisons is there any truth in the suggestion that we are short of mechanical equipment, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor assured me at that Box that we had all we needed?

Mr. Sandys: So far as I know, there is no shortage of mechanical equipment. I have had no complaints from local authorities that there is a shortage of such equipment — excavators, mechanical shovels and so forth. But one must


use this heavy equipment sparingly. It cannot be used on every type of job, otherwise we run the risk of destroying valuable material which could otherwise be salvaged.

Mr. Walkden: What local authorities have equipment like that of the Americans?

Sir H. Williams: Is it proper for an hon. Member to suggest that a Peer gave an assurance from that Box?

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement on the progress of the repair of bomb-damage in the Greater London area.

Mr. Sandys: I have nothing of a general character to add to the statements I made on 7th and 15th December. However, in view of the public interest in this question, I propose to publish at monthly intervals detailed figures showing the progress made.

Captain Gammans: Can the Minister say when his first monthly return will come out as to whether we are getting on with this work up to schedule? Are we making the progress he anticipated?

Mr. Sandys: The first statement will be issued to-day.

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works if any decision has yet been reached regarding the employment of German prisoners on the repair of bomb-damage and the clearance of bombed sites in preparation for rebuilding.

Mr. Sandys: Bomb damage repairs have to be carried out by small groups of men working in private houses. This is, therefore, not a suitable task for German prisoners. The clearance of bombed sites is a different matter. Italian prisoners are being employed on this work. If necessary the use of Germans will be considered.

Pressed Steel Houses (Production)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works what is the present position regarding the Portal House; and what has been the cost to date to the taxpayer.

Mr. Sandys: As I explained on 7th December, the production of pressed steel houses cannot begin until some time after

the end of the German war. Orders have been placed amounting to rather over £1,000,000 to cover prototypes, jigs, tools and other preparatory work. About three-quarters of this sum is in respect of kitchen and cupboard units which are to be used also in all the other approved types of temporary houses.

Sir W. Smithers: Is this not another instance of a waste of public money because the officials in Whitehall will not take the advice of experts, and especially housewives?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about any waste of public money. The hon. Member has not made it clear what he has in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Who is responsible for giving the assurances about the erection of the Portal house, and creating the impression in the public mind that it was a possible proposition and one capable of immediate application? How is it that we now find it is impossible to proceed with it for a long time, if at all?

Mr. Sandys: That is a large question, which was fully discussed in the Debate a short time ago. I could not adequately deal with this in reply to a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VISITS TO WAR FRONTS)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether the arrangements for parties of Members of Parliament to visit the troops overseas have yet been completed.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I assume the hon. Member is referring to the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 26th October last. Arrangements for a visit to the Italian theatre are now in course of preparation by the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Guy: Will all Members have an equal opportunity?

The Prime Minister: They will certainly not all be able to go. I cannot engage that everyone will have an equal opportunity, but every endeavour will be made to meet the general wishes of the House in regard to a series of visits to Italy. The


French question still requires consideration.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In choosing Members of Parliament for these facilities, may I ask the Prime Minister not to confine his choice to those who are very violently in support of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think it is some of those who are not violently in support of the Government who have the most need of instruction.

Mr. Shinweil: Is it not the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to despatch to Italy or some other place those who are actually in violent disagreement with the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that all theatres might be considered.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the many committees and deputations organised in this House, of which I get no information or knowledge whatever, may I put forward my name as a candidate for a visit if circumstances permit?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in putting forward his name, will indicate the front to which he would like to go.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, FAR EAST (WELFARE)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the visit of Lord Munster to India.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (STATISTICS)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Production if he can give the latest output figures compared to each war year; the number of firms where the Government have appointed directors in the national interest; who has paid the directors; and the amounts they have received in each case.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): As the answer is rather long and

contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is not yet possible to add any further output figures to the very full record of all fields of activity which was contained in the White Paper on Statistics relating to the War Effort of the U.K. As promised in that paper, additional informaton will be published from time to time. As regards the second part of the Question, there are at present 11 firms to which for various reasons the Government have appointed directors. A total of 37 directors have been nominated, 13 of whom are unpaid. The remainder are paid directors' fees by the companies concerned, and I am informed that the total amounts for the firms are:


Number of paid directors per firm.
Total fees paid by firms.






£


3
…
…
…
900


3
…
…
…
1,200


2
…
…
…
700


3
…
…
…
400


3
…
…
…
500


3
…
…
…
150


3
…
…
…
500


4
…
…
…
250


24
…
…
…
£4,600


In the case of the remaining three firms none of the directors receives any fees.

These figures do not include directors appointed by negotiation to the boards of privately owned companies.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Production if he can make a full statement giving the total amount of public funds which have been, or are to be, expended by way of advances or grants of a capital nature or in providing assets for the use of companies; and the amount of expenditure on agency and shadow factories and on ordnance factories.

Mr. Lyttelton: As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total of approved expenditure from public funds on war factory buildings since the beginning of the re-armament


period is £864,633,000, made up as follows:



Total.



£


Capital Assistance Schemes:



Contributory
22,025,000


Non-Contributory
404,358,000


Agency and Shadow Factories
256,400,000


Government (i.e. Ordnance) Factories
181,850,000



£864,633,000

The principle of contributory schemes of capital assistance is that the Government make a contribution (usually limited to 60 per cent.) and contractors retain the ownership of the assets.

The principle of non-contributory capital assistance schemes is that the Government bear the whole cost and retain the ownership of the assets.

These figures relate to capital expenditure covering buildings and plant.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a White Paper showing the increase in productive capacity in each industry over the 1935 capacity and the production per man hours where possible, the trends in productivity, overall output figures and output figures by industries and sections of industries, in order that an economic analysis may be made with a view to the preparation of a constructive economic policy for industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Some information on these matters is contained in the White Paper on Statistics relating to the War Effort of the United Kingdom. So wide a study as that suggested by my hon. Friend would involve the collection and correlation of a very large amount of material, and I regret that it is not possible to undertake such a task in present circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Rhubarb (Maximum Prices)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Food if, having regard to the fact that no explanatory memorandum is attached thereto, he will state the purpose of the Rhubarb (Maximum Prices) Order, 1944; and where rhubarb could be purchased on 1st December, 1944, the date on which the Order came into force.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): My hon. Friend appears to have overlooked the explanatory note printed on page 8 of the Order. The new prices were published in readiness for the forced rhubarb season in the Leeds area, which generally begins during December.

Vegetables (Short Weight)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the difficulties now experienced by members of the Wolverhampton and District Retail Fruit and Vegetable Federation in the functioning of food control enforcements; and whether to prevent the delivery of short weight and unsaleable produce he will detail inspectors to supervise and check packages at the producing end, calling in local food officers and weights and measures inspectors to assist the wholesale enforcement, making it compulsory for all wholesalers to supply retailers with proper invoices without prior request, and securing the release of paper and other material to seal packages and so prevent pilferage.

Colonel Llewellin: I regret that I am not able to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestions, but if a retailer will give definite particulars of short weight supplies I will have immediate investigations made. Enforcement Inspectors including Weights and Measures Inspectors are already employed on such work.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that sometimes as much as 19 lbs. of earth is found in 56 lbs. of carrots, and they still have to be sold at the controlled price? Will he take steps to remedy a situation of that kind?

Colonel Llewellin: As I say, when we get information from the retailer which enables us to prove a case, then a prosecution is instituted.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend explain to the House why, when we import from abroad we can give guarantees to the retailer of weight or quantity in the case of apples, onions and such commodities, but we cannot give guarantees to the retailer in the case of home produced food or vegetables or other commodities?

Colonel Llewellin: There are difficulties here on the farms with man-power at the present moment. It is not altogether easy always to clean all the vegetables that come to market. The market gardeners and farmers are very pressed.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is has been happening for the last 25 years.

Major Mills: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is not only the intentional or accidental addition of earth to carrots and suchlike to which exception is taken, but the method of selling? Is he further aware that a cauliflower may leave the farm weighing some 6 lbs., but eventually, when sold over the counter to the purchaser, it probably weighs only a few ozs.?

Colonel Llewellin: There are different margins for the untrimmed and the trimmed cauliflower in the Order.

Christmas Poultry (Black Market)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the black market existing in turkeys and poultry, in view of the Christmas trade; and what action he has taken and is taking about it.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, and we are instituting prosecutions wherever we can get the necessary evidence.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the black market still exists in spite of the prosecutions, and is not the only excuse for the control of produce that the public should get its fair share? Is he further aware that this Christmas, in order to get a turkey, you have to be very rich, very lucky, or very unscrupulous?

Colonel Llewellin: A large number of people who are none of those things will get their turkeys this Christmas.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not inform the House that there is no need whatever for any black market, in view of the thousands of turkeys and chickens which are being sent officially from Ulster through the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland?

Colonel Llewellin: I am very much obliged to Northern Ireland for the large supplies they are sending.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it desirable that so much of the time of the House should be taken up with the claim for private enterprise? Would it not be more desirable to abolish it altogether?

Ice Cream (Caterers)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food (1) when he proposes to modify existing restrictions so as to enable caterers to provide ice cream to the extent to which they have ingredients available, in accordance with the announcement on 16th November;
(2) how much roller skimmed milk powder will be available for caterers; and whether small caterers will be able to participate.

Colonel Llewellin: Caterers may provide ice cream to the extent that they have any ingredients available other than those specified in the Use of Milk (Restriction) Order, 1941. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. J. Davidson) on Wednesday last, I am looking into the practicability of making roller skimmed milk powder available to caterers for the making of ice cream.

Sir J. Mellor: As caterers get no skimmed milk powder at present, and as they are not allowed to freeze milk, or other milk products, how can they provide ice cream forthwith, as promised by the Parliamentary Secretary on 16th November?

Colonel Llewellin: There are other things than milk products from which ice cream can be made.

Wrapping Paper

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the shortage of greaseproof paper in the Spennymoor division for wrapping butter, bacon, cheese, cooked meats, etc.; that the Tudhoe and Spennymoor Co-operative Society and other small shops have not been able to buy any of the above for months, and, as a result, find great difficulty in carrying on their business; and if he will take steps to increase the supply of this necessary commodity.

Colonel Llewellin: There is a great shortage of all wrapping paper, especially grease-proof, but suitable alternative papers are however in adequate supply for the wrapping of the fat ration if the paper is used economically by the retailer. I am making inquiries into the particular case mentioned by my hon. Friend and will let him know the result.

Mr. Murray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been informed at the present time of a shopkeeper wrapping bacon, cheese, and various other things in brown paper?

Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend will let me know of any shopkeeper in that predicament, I will certainly look into it to see whether supplies cannot be sent to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Timber Export (Trading Licence)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Supply if he will omit Clause 2 in the Trading Licence, Timber, in which full particulars of each inquiry are required to be submitted to Branch 8 Licensing of His Ministry thereby causing delay to British exporters, in view of the fact that American traders are under no such handicap, since they are free to buy and sell by cable.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. It has been decided to withdraw this Clause.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause great satisfaction amongst exporters, and will he do his utmost to urge his colleague at the Ministry of War Transport to adopt the same realistic attitude to exporters of public service vehicles?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate what type of pressure was brought to bear upon his Department to achieve this modification, in order that some of us may know how to proceed in other matters?

Agar

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Supply what is the substance called agar in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Order, S.R. & O., No. 1321 of 1944.

Sir A. Duncan: Agar is obtained from certain seaweeds. When boiled with water it forms a jelly essential for the preparation of cultures for bacteriological purposes. A full description of agar is given in the British Pharmacopoeia.

Penicillin

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is now in a position

to indicate whether any arrangements have been made to enable British manufacturers to take full commercial advantage of the British discovery of penicillin; whether he can give any estimates of what our production of penicillin will be in a year's time; and how this will compare with American production.

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. Many British manufacturers are now making penicillin or are making arrangements to do so and any firm licensed for this purpose under the terms of the Therapeutic Substances Act will be given every encouragement to manufacture. It would be premature to give estimates of our production of penicillin in a year's time but it will be substantial, though less than American production, and it will not only meet military needs but provide large quantities for civilian purposes.

Used Machine Tools (Disposal)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is now in a position to announce the plans of his Department in connection with the classification and distribution of used machine tools; and whether in this connection it is proposed to utilise to the full the services of used machine tools merchants both for valuation and distribution; or whether these tasks are to be reserved for Government officials.

Sir A. Duncan: Plans for the orderly disposal of Government-owned machine tools are in course of being worked out with the various Departments concerned. Representatives of the producers and distributors will be fully consulted before final decisions are taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Officers' Accommodation (Assessment)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the Admiralty assessment of the value to naval officers of the accommodation provided for them in the Service.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): The Admiralty has made no assessment of the value to naval officers of the accommodation provided for them.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Am I to understand from that answer that such accommodation is assumed to be entirely free,


and not taken into account when calculating the rates of pay of officers and men in the Service?

Captain Pilkington: The two things are completely different. My hon. and gallant Friend's Question was whether any assessment had been made of the accommodation provided for officers in the Service, and the answer was that no assessment had been made.

Officers' Lodging Allowance

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, and when, lodging allowance is paid to naval officers, and what is the amount paid to them.

Captain Pilkington: A naval officer is ordinarily provided with Service accommodation on a single basis. When, however, this is not available and he has to provide private accommodation for himself he is eligible for payment of lodging allowance except when he is a married officer living with his wife, when payment of marriage allowance is made in lieu of lodging allowance. The rates of lodging allowance normally payable both at home and abroad are:
Captains and above £100 a year.
Lieutenants, Lieutenant-Commanders and Commanders £80 a year.
Sub-Lieutenants and Warrant Officers £60 a year.
But in the United Kingdom the rate was recently increased to £100 a year for all officers for the duration of the war. Abroad the standard rates are supplemented where necessary by a colonial or cost-of-living allowance.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Since lodging allowance is provided for a specific purpose, that is, when no official quarters are provided for an officer, does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is no connection whatever between lodging allowance and marriage allowance?

Captain Pilkington: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Debate in this House last week when it was fully and exhaustively dealt with.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It certainly was not.

Miss Rathbone: Would it not greatly facilitate the marriage allowance reaching the person for whom it is intended, if it was sent to the wife and not given to the husband?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (NON-NATIVE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the proposals for promoting non-native settlement in Tanganyika; and whether any steps are being taken to implement the Tanganyika Development Report of 1940.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement made by the Governor of Tanganyika on the subject of non-native settlement, in his address to the Legislative Council on 7th December. As regards the second part of the Question, the Post-War Planning Committee in Tanganyika is now engaged in framing a comprehensive development programme, with the Development Report of 1940 as a basis in so far as it is applicable in the circumstances of to-day.

Following is the statement:

In December, 1938, Sir Mark Young, in a statement before the Legislative Council, laid down certain principles which guided the policy of the Government as regards the expansion of non-native settlement. As I have already stated on a previous occasion, these principles continue to be the accepted policy of this Government. They provide that within the limits necessarily imposed by factors such as the available land and labour supply, the encouragement of non-native settlement should be regarded as an integral part of the plans for advancement of the general prosperity of the country, subject always to the condition that the kind of settlement in view is such as to give a reasonable assurance of being economically successful and of contributing to the general development of the Territory. The Central Development Committee, reporting in 1940, accepted non-native settlement as an essential feature in the consideration of the wide schemes of development put forward in their report. What that Committee had in mind, to use their own words, was "the encouragement of settlement by non-natives who are prepared to accept the general policy of steady advancement of the standard of living of all inhabitants, not only their own." It is the view of the Government that successful settlement


by non-natives on these lines would provide one of the most potent influences in helping to raise the standards of African life. It goes without saying that all plans for the expansion of non-native settlement must be conditioned by a scrupulous regard for the rights and interests and the future needs of the African population and must make due provision for the potential development of possible new types of African Land Settlement.

War conditions have prevented progress in the pursuance of this policy for the past five years, but, with the approaching termination of the war in Europe, the measures which should be taken to investigate further the possibilities of settlement of this kind have now come under review. The possibilities of success in non-native settlement must clearly depend to a considerable extent on post-war conditions, all of which cannot yet be clearly foreseen; many of them will be affected by factors lying outside the scope of local action. It is apparent, however, that whatever these conditions may be, preliminary steps should now be taken to set up an organisation in this country which will make the fulfilment of this policy possible as soon as peace returns.

The Post-War Planning Committee has recommended the setting up of a Land Settlement Board and the appointment of a Land Settlement Officer, and steps are now being taken to give effect to these recommendations. A Land Settlement Officer has actually been appointed. Furthermore, sub-committees of the Post-War Planning Committee have been at work in the areas most likely to be affected and have been asked to investigate and report on the availability of suitable land for non-native settlement and to give such details as are possible as to the areas available, the nature of the country, water supplies, accessibility to markets and other factors affecting the suitability of the land for settlement. They have also been asked to report on the availability of land for special types of native settlement. These enquiries are not yet complete. They will be co-ordinated and continued by the Land Settlement Board whose first task will be to assess the suitability of the land available for the purpose in view, within economic range of the main transport system of such extensions of that system as may be found feasible, and to report on the conditions

under which it may be hoped that such settlement could be established with a good prospect of success as a contribution to the economic development of the country. The Board would also be asked to report on the number of persons for whom accommodation could be found in the available areas.

A good prospect of economic success and of a development which will contribute to the general prosperity and welfare of the Territory are essential conditions in the fulfilment of this policy and it is apparent that the expansion of non-native settlement on sound lines must be gradual. Any attempt to force the pace regardless of the availability of markets, labour supplies and other conditions which together make up what might be termed, in this connection, the absorptive capacity of the country, would involve the grave risk of economic failure which would be disastrous to the future of the Territory. It must also be clearly understood that, while the Government would be justified in providing reasonable initial assistance to settlers, particularly so as to ensure the admission of suitable settlers who might not otherwise be possessed of sufficient capital there could not be any question in Tanganyika of continued subsidisation of any non-native settlement which experience proved to be uneconomic.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (LABOUR ORGANISATION)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the unsatisfactory revelations in the recent Report of the Commission on the 1943 Mauritius disturbances, he will insist on a drastic overhaul of the Labour Department in that Colony; whether trade union law will be amended so as to permit of industrial and island-wide organisation with officers not statutorily required to be in the employment of the trade or service organised; and whether he will push on with constitutional change.

Colonel Stanley: With regard to the first part of the Question, as the reply is rather long, I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part of the Question, the law has now been amended to provide for the employment as officials of an association of persons who at any time have been employed in the industry which the asso-


ciation represents. As regards the last part of the Question, I have received from the Governor his comprehensive proposals for constitutional reform, and there will be no unnecessary delay in the process of discussions here and in Mauritius.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the fault lies not with the new legislation that is required, but in the administration, which has failed to carry out the existing legislation? Will he do something to improve the present administration?

Colonel Stanley: I cannot entirely accept that. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see the many steps which have been taken to improve that organisation.

Following is the statement:

Measures for increasing the efficiency of the Labour Department in Mauritius have already been taken. These include the following:

(a) The new Director of Labour is not now employed on other duties unconnected with his own Department, and is able to devote his whole time to the work of the Labour Department.
(b) The senior staff of the Labour Department have been increased to three effective officers instead of one, in addition to six labour inspectors instead of five.
(c) The staff of the Labour Department are now decentralised, each senior officer being allotted a group district.
(d) Poor Law Administration has been handed over to a supervisor under the general supervision of the Director of Labour.
(e) A special officer has been appointed to assist in the establishment of trade unions and in the re-establishment of industrial courts.
(f) Progress is being made in setting up a works council in each undertaking.
(g) The peripatetic Industrial Court is now fully in operation.
(h) The Labour Advisory Board has been constituted a Wages Board to advise on minimum wage rates and hours of work.

In addition to these measures, the Governor proposes to appoint an Indian Magistrate as an extra Assistant Director of Labour, and to improve the status of inspectors who will reside in their districts when accommodation is available. Further reorganisation proposals are under close examination in the Colony, and arrangements have been made for the early visit of an experienced Trade Union official to Mauritius. Labour issues cannot wholly be isolated from the general plan of administrative reform which is taking shape but which is dependent for its success upon finance and personnel which are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL SERVICE (ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many appointments in the administrative grades have been made in the Colonial Service in the last 12 months; and how many of these appointments were taken up by women.

Colonel Stanley: During the present year five new appointments of administrative officers have been made, of which two have been filled by the selection of women.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War when the latest Reports from the Protecting Power regarding Stalag Luft IV were received; and whether he is able to make any statement with regard to conditions in this camp.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A report was received on 15th December of the visit paid by inspectors of the Protecting Power to this Camp on 10th October. The report shows that it was considerably overcrowded and that conditions generally were not satisfactory. Representations were being made through the Protecting Power. The conditions have been aggravated by the transfer to this camp of men from another camp and of newly captured prisoners.

Mr. Hutchinson: Can the Minister say whether he will take steps to give publicity to any further report which is received from the Protecting Power?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down another question later.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (MECHANISATION)

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the urgent importance of intensifying research into improving mechanised methods of coal-getting in British collieries, he will arrange at an early date to set aside one or more mines purely for experimental purposes so as to enable practical experiments to be carried out under working conditions without necessarily observing all the restrictions required in the ordinary working mine.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): My right hon. and gallant Friend will consider this suggestion when he receives the report of the Technical Advisory Committee which is now sitting, but the restrictions at present imposed are all based on practical experience.

UNITED KINGDOM AND ETHIOPIA (AGREEMENT)

Mr. Eden: I beg to ask leave of the House to make a brief statement. I am happy to inform the House that a new Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement superseding the Agreement of 31st January, 1942, was signed in Addis Ababa yesterday by the Ethiopian Prime Minister on behalf of the Ethiopian Government, and by Earl De La Warr on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The text of the new Agreement will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing His Majesty's Government's appreciation of the skill and devotion which Lord De La Warr and the other members of the British Delegation have shown in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion. It is our firm conviction that this new Agreement, freely negotiated between two sovereign States, will lead to a further period of friendly and confident collaboration between Great Britain and Ethiopia.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Does the Agreement contain any provisions for co-operation between His Majesty's Government and the Emperor of Ethiopia in the suppression of slavery?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put that question down later. If he does, I will give him a more detailed reply.

Miss Rathbone: May we have the assurance that the Agreement really carries out the legitimate desires of the Emperor of Ethiopia for safeguarding his frontiers and future security? Has it been a willingly accepted Agreement?

Mr. Eden: I do not know what more I can say to the hon. Lady than that it has been a freely negotiated Agreement. So far as the sovereignty of the Emperor is concerned, that is not touched, and under the Agreement certain large reserved areas previously administered by our military authorities revert to him.

ARMED FORCES, FAR EAST (WELFARE)

The Prime Minister: I have been asked to make a statement which I have prepared in conjunction with the Ministers at the head of the War Office and the India Office. Many Members of the House have very properly been concerned about the welfare of our Forces serving in the Far East. The Service Departments, and in particular the War Office, who have the greatest interest in this subject, have for many months made preparations in conjunction with the Government of India for the reception of the great Forces which are assembled and assembling in the Far Eastern theatre, and not least among their activities has been the provision of such stores and equipment as may be necessary on a reasonable basis for the well-being and contentment of those Forces. But in my view the time has now come when the influence of the Government machine as a whole, civil as well as military, must be brought to bear upon this important question. For this reason my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has recently made a tour of India and the Burma front for the purpose of examining the situation on the spot and reporting to the Government about the improvements which are required. His report is being published as a White Paper, and will be available in the Vote Office before the House rises this evening.
The Government and the House are indebted to my Noble Friend for the manner in which he has discharged this responsible task. His report calls attention to a considerable number of matters in which improvement is urgently required. At the same time, he has rightly recognised the difficulties which have had to be faced by the authorities charged with these matters and he has presented what is I think a very fair and helpful picture of the situation. It is important, in arriving at a judgment on these matters, to realise that the task of providing suitable amenities for troops serving in the East is far more intricate and harder than for troops serving under European conditions. The great spaces to be covered, the lack of ordinary European amenities of life anywhere except in large towns, and the small numbers of European women who can devote their services voluntarily to the provision of amenities are great handicaps. The Government of India, since 1942, have had to receive a very large increase in the number of European troops in India and their resources have been strained to the utmost to provide accommodation and to fulfil military construction programmes essential for operations. A great deal has been done to improve and expand welfare facilities for the British Forces, but clearly more can be achieved if additional resources and personnel can be provided from outside India.
The Government will apply themselves energetically to this problem. The Government of India and the South-East Asia Command have already been asked for a detailed statement of the help they require to make good the deficiencies in the welfare field to which Lord Munster has drawn attention.
One of our first concerns is, naturally, the welfare of the sick and wounded. My noble Friend visited 34 hospitals in the course of his tour. I am glad to say that he reports from a layman's point of view that he is satisfied that the medical facilities are maintained at a high standard of efficiency in spite of the administrative difficulties of an extended front and poor communications. He has drawn attention to certain shortages of medical personnel in India. These are the reflection of general shortages. Every effort is being made to improve the position, but the Govern-

ment have to pay regard to the many other claims, both civilian and Service, on the available supply of doctors and nurses. Consideration is being given urgently to my noble Friend's proposal that further numbers of the Voluntary Aid Detachment should be sent out to India, and to the other proposals he makes to improve the present position.
In some directions it will not be possible to achieve what we desire until the defeat of Germany enables greater resources to be diverted to the East. But plans have been made and directions are being given so that when these greater resources become available, they can be diverted without loss of time to the amelioration of the conditions of service of the men and women of the Services and the Merchant Navy who are called upon to continue the fight against Japan. At that stage a greater volume of air transport should become available and this will render practicable an improvement in the facilities for the conveyance of fresh food and other comforts to the troops in the forward areas, and the movement of men on urgent compassionate leave and to some extent on ordinary leave from the front. It will also make possible a wider use of air transport for the evacuation of casualties and the improvement of the transport of mails. A plan is being prepared under which the rapidity of mails can be progressively improved and the charges reduced. The immediate target is to carry by air all letter mail to the Far East and it is hoped to achieve this early in 1945. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has drawn attention in his report to the inadequacy of accommodation in leave centres and static camps in the Far Eastern theatres. A thorough revision of the present scales of accommodation and amenities in these centres and camps has already been ordered. Attention is being given to the adoption of modern methods of construction, the extension of fly-proofing of buildings, and the provision in greater quantities of modern appurtenances including refrigerators, shower baths and good furniture. These improvements will proceed as far as resources permit. Special attention is also being given to the provision of a varied diet and up to date, hygienic systems of preparing and cooking food.
Measures are being taken as a matter of urgency which will in due course


improve the supplies of beer available for the Forces in India. Indian production of beer has already been expanded to the fullest extent which is practicable without the import of raw materials and plant, but I hope it will be found possible to increase further both imported supplies and Indian production. Arrangements are also well advanced to produce in India cigarettes of a type more palatable to British troops. Trial brands have already been issued with a view to large scale production when it is known which type is preferred by the men. Measures are also in hand to accelerate the provision of cinema apparatus and wireless equipment most of which I should mention can only be obtained from the U.S.A. The value of the work done by British women for the well-being of the troops in India has been proved. Steps are now being taken to encourage more British women, both those who are resident in India now and volunteers from home, to undertake this important and valuable contribution to the welfare of the troops. Canteen services are not the responsibility of N.A.A.F.I. in this theatre, but the Government of India are taking special steps to improve and to enlarge the local organisation.
It has also been decided that special consideration will be given to Servicemen and their families in assessing priorities for the allotment of houses and furniture after the war. The wives and families of Servicemen engaged in the Far Eastern theatre will, of course, share in this preferential treatment. In order that Servicemen overseas may keep abreast of important developments in social policy at home, pamphlets explaining new legislation on matters of major importance will be prepared and distributed to Servicemen and merchant seamen.
The House will have observed that in recent months a good deal more attention has been paid by the general public in this country to the efforts and achievements of our men in the Far East. The Ministry of Information and other authorities concerned recognise that this sympathetic interest must be fed by a service of reliable information as to what goes on there. Both the authorities at home and those in control of information on the spot will continue their efforts to maintain and improve the sources of such a service.
Although it is not a matter referred to in his report, Lord Munster has drawn my attention to the uncertainty which prevails in the minds of many of the men on the subject of the length of time for which they will be required to serve in the East. The position seems to have been made clear by the Secretary of State for War on 26th September and by me on 17th November. But it would perhaps be useful if I restate the position so far as those serving in India and S.E.A.C. are concerned.
British officers and men of the British Army serving in the East are eligible for posting to the Home Establishment under the Python scheme. This was explained by the Secretary of State for War in his statement. This scheme is not applicable to British officers of the Indian Army, but does apply to British Service officers and men attached to the Indian Army. The intention is to reduce the period of service in the Far East to the shortest period which is practicable, and, generally speaking, priority for posting to the Home Establishment under this scheme is given to those who have served longest away from this country. It is hoped before very long to have posted home all those who have served for more than four years in India and S.E.A.C. In fact the aim is to reduce the qualifying period for repatriation from those theatres to a few months under four years. There may be unavoidable exceptions to this in cases where individuals or specialist personnel cannot be spared for operational reasons or for whom trained replacements cannot yet be provided; but this is the general policy, which will be carried out to the furthest extent that war allows.
In addition there is the 28-day leave scheme which I recently announced to the House. This is designed to give a short period of leave at home to men who have been engaged in exceptionally arduous conditions but who may not come within the scope of the Python scheme for some time. The selection is made at the discretion of the Commanders-in-Chief concerned. But, naturally, length of absence will be taken into account. Moreover, the current scheme whereby men are posted back to the United Kingdom on grounds of extreme compassion will continue to operate. Men who receive leave under the short leave scheme will return again to service in the Far East but as


far as is practicable in present circumstances men repatriated under the Python scheme will not.
British officers and men belonging to the Indian Army are not eligible for posting to this country under the Python scheme. Home posting is impossible because the Indian Army has no home establishment, and transfer to the British Army for this purpose would involve the loss to the Indian Army of an officer who has received special training for service with Indian troops. In lieu of the Python scheme a leave scheme has been introduced under which British officers of the Indian Army can receive 61 days' leave at home. There are many officers of the Indian Army with very long periods of overseas service and at present no officer with less than five years' service is considered for leave, as it is obviously equitable that those with the longest service abroad should receive leave first. The short leave scheme also applies to British officers and other ranks of the Indian Army and they are eligible on the same basis as those of the British Army.
His Majesty's Government is giving constant attention to the needs of the men and women serving in the Far East. I have issued instructions to those concerned on the spot and to Departments here that in relation to operational needs a higher priority must be given to the requirements for welfare and amenities for the Forces in the Far East than hitherto. I have also, at the desire of the Secretary of State for War, appointed Lieut.-General King to be my personal representative in the India and South East Asia Commands for welfare matters. It will be General King's duty to ascertain how matters are progressing and to report to me on difficulties which may arise and on the assistance which is required from this country. He will be concerned with the welfare of all three Services and the Merchant Navy and will have a staff suitably composed for that purpose. The rapidity with which improvements can be effected must to a large extent depend on the progress of the war in Europe, but we shall press on in the meantime with every measure for which our resources are available.

Mr. Bellenger: Although the House will welcome the Government's decision to publish Lord Munster's report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he

recognises that many of the points he has mentioned this morning will require serious consideration in view of the division of authority between the Government of India and the War Office at home; and as that raises a constitutional matter would it be possible for him to give the House an opportunity, after the Recess, of debating that White Paper and bringing to the attention of the Government very serious matters of which many hon. Members are cognisant?

The Prime Minister: That must be considered in relation to the general course of Business, but I should have thought there would be opportunities in the normal course of Business for discussing such a matter. If it is a question of taking extra Parliamentary time, that must be considered through the usual channels and with the Leader of the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: Will my right hon. Friend now consider appointing a Director of Welfare from the War Office to undertake the responsibility in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am very reluctant to add to Ministerial posts at the present time.

Mr. A. Bevan: The conversations which some of us have had with soldiers, particularly in the welfare organisations of India, lead us to believe that one of the reasons why these difficulties have arisen is that there is no effective liaison between the India Office and the War Office here, and although my right hon. Friend has asked for Lieutenant-General King to report to him, that places a great burden upon him if he has to be approached on each occasion when General King is unable to move the War Office or the India Office effectively. Would it not therefore be better to have a welfare liaison between the India Office and the War Office here, which would take some of the burdens off the shoulders of my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India says that he has his own welfare officer in the War Office and that the War Office have their welfare——[Interruption]. Well, he had better say it himself.

The Secretary of State for India and Burma (Mr. Amery): There is on the military side of the India Office an officer


specially charged with welfare and specially charged with keeping in touch with the welfare side of the War Office.

Mr. A. Bevan: But the information we have is to the effect that representations from India which have been made over the course of years have run into a sort of vermiform appendix in both Departments and that nothing has come out except disease, and that is why the difficulties have arisen.

Mr. John Dugdale: Would it be possible to congratulate Lord Munster on his shrewdness and perspicacity in seeing through the great clouds of amenities which suddenly descended upon many units?

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's excellent statement has confirmed the substantial accuracy of many of the questions, may we suggest to the India Office that they should be even more responsive to questions of welfare when they are raised by Private Members in this House?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that, though there may be criticism on the ground that there has been delay, the process of Parliamentary comment and criticism, followed by action of a far-reaching character on the part of the Government, was a course on which all parties and interests concerned had a right to congratulate themselves.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In view of the fact that many of the disabilities that our troops are suffering were disabilities referred to in the first part of the Prime Minister's statement, is it not possible for an arrangement to be made for this White Paper to be debated, because it is the opinion of many hon. Members that those disabilities are due to the appalling social, economic and political conditions that obtain in India just now?

The Prime Minister: I do not wonder at all, considering that most of the British civil servants have been withdrawn.

B.O.A.C. (PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, concerning a Private Notice Question? Many of us heard with considerable concern a series

of grave allegations made in this House yesterday by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). I thought it was right that the matter should be forthwith brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and that those allegations should be promptly investigated. I sought your permission to put down a Private Notice Question on this topic addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. You, in the exercise of your discretion, did not accept the Question, and all I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that for the guidance of myself and other hon. Members the House may be told the grounds upon which the Question was refused.

Mr. Speaker: Apart from the fact that I did not consider it was a matter of extreme urgency, in any case a Private Notice Question is not the proper procedure. In such a case the proper procedure would be for the hon. and learned Member to put on the Paper a Motion asking for an inquiry or a Select Committee to be set up and then, when that is on the Order Paper, and when we reassemble, to ask the Secretary of State for Air what action he proposes to take on that Motion.

Mr. A. Bevan: We have had on recent occasions a number of Private Notice Questions which have been put for the convenience of the Government which many of us thought were straining the rules of procedure. Here we have a Private Notice Question relating to a matter which occurred yesterday. It is true that hon. Members can put a Motion on the Order Paper, but everybody knows that is one of the most useless proceedings in the House, because towards the end of a Session the Order Paper contains about 100 Motions which hon Members have put down and which the Government, in their wisdom, usually disregard. Here there are very serious allegations made against the administration of one of the Service Departments which are going to be left to seethe, as it were, right over the Christmas Recess without any indication from the Government that they are going to make inquiries into the allegations. It seemed to us that this was a matter on which a Private Notice Question ought to be permitted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may think so, but I do not think so. As a matter of fact, if a Motion is put on the Order Paper and it is brought to the notice


of the Secretary of State for Air he will have time to consider whether or not a Select Committee should be set up to inquire into this matter. He, after all, should have some little time for reflection. Hasty action might prejudice inquiring into the allegations, and therefore the due notice I have suggested is the proper way.

Mr. Hopkinson: Although no notice was given to me of the point to be raised to-day——

Mr. Hughes: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, I could not give him notice because I looked for him without avail in this building before I came in to my seat.

Mr. Hopkinson: Quite right; I was not complaining in any way, because I came in rather late to-day. But the point is this: Suppose a Motion were put on the Order Paper. Already I have demanded, weeks ago, an inquiry, which was not granted by the Secretary of State, who was present then. He did not either assent to or refuse my demand for a full and impartial inquiry into the whole affairs of that Group Training Command of R.A.F. from its inception. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has had ample time to consider the matter. If a Motion were put on the Order Paper now, would it be in Order, as the question has already been raised on my Question and is still pending on my own application for a full and impartial judicial inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps after what the hon. Member has said to the House, the Air Ministry may change its mind. After all, I understand, the hon. Member made many allegations at some length before the House.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Procedure, and for the information of the House, is it not a fact that if such a Select Committee were appointed, that is to say, if the Motion was accepted by the Government, the Select Committee would have power to compel not only Members of this House but outside persons to give evidence, and therefore the true facts of the case would be disclosed under oath, which is what some of us wish to see?

Mr. Speaker: That is so, if the House so chooses.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. You will be aware, Sir, that all the papers this morning carry a story about these allegations. Is it not a matter of urgency that this House should immediately take a decision, even if only in the form of question and answer, in order to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that he must immediately answer these allegations, as they are in the hands of everybody in this country?

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it not very undesirable that public servants should have allegations made against them in this sort of way when they are quite unable to reply? Is it not the duty of Members of this House, if they wish to bring accusations, to take the quickest procedure possible in order that they may be cleared up? I do not believe any of us want to see any public servants or civil servants subjected to the treatment recently meted out to them, not only here but in another place. I feel that this is a great change in ordinary procedure and something new, of which the House should take immediate cognisance. That would be only fair to the Government, to the Government Departments and civil servants.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously the quickest procedure is for the House, if it wishes, to set up a Select Committee, but that must be a matter for consideration and it cannot be decided in answer to a Private Notice Question. Surely a few hours' notice should be given, and I suggested that if a Motion were put on the Order Paper the Government would have time to consider it and the House, when it comes back after Christmas, would have full time to insist upon a Select Committee, if it wished.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: With your permission, Sir, I wish to point out again that I made a specific demand in Debate in this House for the setting up of a judicial committee, to inquire into this matter. That offer still remains open, and surely the authorities concerned have had time enough to consider the request, and either give a definite refusal to set up such an investigation, or accede to my demand and let us have a full and impartial judicial inquiry.

Sir Irving Albery: I should like to ask whether, when a civil servant or public official is assailed in this way, it is not,


obviously, the first duty of the Government to defend that official? In the conditions in which the Debate took place last night, that does not seem to have been adequately possible, and it also appears to me that this House would hardly be in a position to decide whether a Select Committee were necessary until it had heard the Government's defence against the accusations which were made last night. Therefore, it seems to me that, if it be possible, it is the duty of the Government now to seek an opportunity to defend their servants.

Mr. Speaker: I rather thought that the course I had suggested would cause that to take place. It would bring the matter to the attention of the Air Ministry, who would naturally take steps to defend their servants, or take what other action they thought fit.

The Prime Minister: This matter will receive, as it has already received, the direct attention of His Majesty's Government, and when we re-assemble a precise statement will be made to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

"to authorise the acquisition of certain land used or dealt with for war purposes and to make other provision as to such land; to remove doubts as to the powers of certain Ministers to acquire land under the Defence Act, 1842; to amend certain of the enactments relating to compensation in respect of land; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Sir James Grigg, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Sir Andrew Duncan, Sir Stafford Cripps, Captain Crookshank, the Attorney-General, Mr. Peake and Mr. Noel-Baker; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 16th January, and to be printed.—[Bill 7.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL

"to prohibit the borrowing of money by local authorities otherwise than from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, to amend section five of the Public Works Loans Act, 1941, and to make further provision with respect to local loans and the borrowing powers of local authorities"; presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Willink and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 16th January, and to be printed.—[Bill 8.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

12.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move:
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 16th January.
The House will remember that I informed them on Thursday last that we proposed to adjourn between these dates, and I would also like to remind hon. Members that power already exists, of course, for the House to be recalled at short notice should an earlier re-assembly be necessary, and, should the need arise, the Government will not hesitate to use that power.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I hope the House will accept this Motion. I had a fear that the Government might desire to give us a rather longer holiday. The fact that there are Bills now before


the House indicates the need for a shorter Recess; and I hope, therefore, as I have said, that the House will accept the Motion even if we have to curtail our holidays more than many of us, personally, would care to do.
There may be a feeling in certain quarters of the House that we should not adjourn to-morrow unless some arrangement could be made for a further discussion on the Greek situation. I am not saying this in any spirit of hostility towards the Government—indeed, I think I can say that I have never used an immoderate word on the unfortunate situation. As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I have raised the question of debating this subject on the Adjournment this afternoon, if Mr. Speaker approves. I think that the discussion on the length of the Christmas Adjournment might well be shortened, if my right hon. Friend agrees that what may remain of to-day—and it will be a considerable portion—should be devoted to a discussion on the Greek situation.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: I very much object to the use by the right hon. Gentleman of the word "holiday," and I would put in a plea for Members situated like myself—county Members—who have very large areas to cover and very large numbers of people who wish to see them before we embark on this tremendous programme of legislation which is coming before the House. So far as I am concerned, and I know many other county Members who reside in their constituencies are in the same boat, the time allowed through our being recalled by 16th January is quite insufficient for the purpose of familiarising ourselves with the numerous problems which our constituents wish to place before us. We are often told that this House is a stale Parliament—that it is out of touch with the electorate. Surely, one of the few occasions when we can hope to remedy that is during the Parliamentary Recess—not the Parliamentary holiday—when we get an opportunity of meeting constituents who wish to see us and discuss a variety of problems with us.
I have no doubt this Motion will be carried. I have 600 square miles to cover—four urban and two rural districts—and in all those areas I am being asked

to meet deputations and people before we re-assemble in January. I should have thought that Ministers would be hard-pressed by so short a Recess, but I am speaking purely from the point of view of country constituents, and I hope this will not be made a precedent and that future Recesses will give us time to consult our constituents and hear their views.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

12.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Labour Costs Amendment) Order, 1944, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 36 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, a copy of a draft of which Order was presented on 12th December, be made.
This and the following Order on the Paper are intended to amend the Cinematograph Films Act of 1938. That Act itself amended the first Cinematograph Films Act of 1927. In that original Act certain quotas were laid down for both renters and exhibitors. In the first of the years governed by that Act, in 1929, the renters' quota was 7½ per cent., and that quota, under the Act, increased by stages until, for renters, it was 20 per cent. in 1938. The exhibitors' quota in 1929 was 5 per cent., and there again, by a series of increments, it rose to 20 per cent. in 1938. Unfortunately, even in those days, it was not found possible to produce sufficient British films to fill the quota. Consequently, the Act of 1938 had to reduce the quota for the following year from the 20 per cent. of the old Act to 15 per cent., and it laid down for the renters an increasing scale until 1947, when it was hoped that the quota for long films would be fulfillable at 30 per cent. and for short films at 25 per cent. Similarly, the exhibitors' quota of 12½ per cent. in 1938 for long and short films alike was to increase, by 1947,


to 25 and 22½ per cent. respectively. Unhappily, however, the war intervening, it has not been possible to fulfil the expectation of the second Act and, therefore, in 1941 an amending Order was made under which the renters' quota for long films for 1942, 1943, and 1944 was to be 20 per cent. and for short films 15 per cent. For exhibitors, who necessarily have to have a smaller quota than renters in order to allow for a reasonable surplus of films in the hands of the renters, the figures were 15 per cent. for each of the years for long films and 12½ per cent. for short films.

Sir Alfred Beit: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend mind repeating the difference between the two quotas? It is quite impossible to hear.

Captain Waterhouse: Under the Order, the renters' quota for long films would be 20 per cent. and for short films 15 per cent. and those for exhibitors 15 and 12½ per cent. respectively.

Sir A. Beit: I would ask my right hon. Friend why there should be that difference between them.

Captain Waterhouse: Obviously, the exhibitors want to have some choice, and if there were precisely the same number of films in the hands of the renters as were needed to fill the exhibitors' quota, the exhibitors, whether they liked it or not, would have to take all of them. One likes a choice of commodities, and likewise it is good to have a choice of films in the hands of the renters.
Unhappily it has not proved possible to produce enough long films to meet even the reduced quota of 1941. On the other hand, the position with regard to short films—and I will deal with them first—has been a good deal easier. In regard to them, the Ministry of Information have gone into production on a considerable scale. They have produced short documentary films, descriptive films, of considerable interest and value, and they have helped a great deal in the fulfilment of the short film quota. In addition, the import of short films from America has fallen materially, and as there has been a rather larger number of British films it has made it easier to fulfil the quota. The present Order does not touch the short film position at all; it deals only with long films.
At the present moment, as I have said, it has not proved possible to produce sufficient long films fully to fill the present reduced quotas. On the exhibitors' side last year there were no less than 940 defaulters and it has not been possible to prosecute them for their failure to fulfil the quota because under Section 7 (1) of the Act it is a defence for any exhibitor to prove that his default is due to circumstances beyond his control. Clearly, the exhibitor can have no control over the films in the hands of the renter, and much less over what is produced by the producer. Therefore, there has been no means under the existing Act, and no wish on our part, to prosecute him. As far as we can see, we hope that we are in the slump at the moment and that from this date there may be some increase in the number of long films. Therefore, under this little Order, we are holding the present quota for next year and, thereafter, we are having small increments to 22½ and 25 per cent., respectively, above the 20 per cent. minimum laid down in the Act. During the same period the exhibitor's minima are raised from the present 15 per cent. to 17½ and 20 per cent. respectively.
Clearly the Board of Trade would have preferred not to have had to come to the House with this Order. Had we known that there were enough films available to make a new Order unnecessary, such knowledge would have been agreeable to us as well as to the House. As I have pointed out, such a course is impracticable, and it is a good deal better that we should bring our present figures more into conformity with the films that we have to distribute.
May I advise the House of certain Amendments in the Order dealing with quotas? A little time ago the House set up a committee of scrutiny and a similar committee was set up in another place. These committees went through the two Orders with officials of the Board of Trade as a result of which three small drafting amendments were suggested. The original Orders were accordingly withdrawn yesterday and fresh Orders placed in the Vote Office. The draft amendments are as follow. In the second line of the first paragraph "(2) (b) of Section 15" has been altered to "(2) (c) of Section 15," which was an error in the first Order. In the Section 1, the words "which specified renters quotas" have been inserted after "Principal Act". This merely makes the


Order more understandable to the lay mind. The Schedule has been subdivided into two parts in place of two Schedules. There is now one Schedule, of which part 1 deals with renters and part 2 deals with exhibitors instead of two separate Schedules.
The second of these Orders deals with the labour cost test and affects renters only. The object of the labour cost test was to have some check on the quality of the British films produced. The original object underlying the whole of the legislation was to get made in this country films worthy of our industry, which, when exported, would enhance British prestige abroad. In order to promote that production, it was clearly desirable that a market should be secured for such films at home in the first place. It was therefore laid down that no long films should rank for quota that had not got a labour cost of at least £1 per foot, and no long film should cost in total less than £7,500. That was in order to ensure that no really cheap films should rank for quota, but it was also the wish of the Government of the day to encourage the production of much better films. Therefore, the system of double and treble quotas was introduced. Under that any film which had a labour cost of more than £3 per foot would rank as being 2 feet for every 1 foot for the calculation of the quota. Similarly, better films still with a labour cost of £5 per foot would rank as being worth 3 feet for every foot of its actual length. During the war labour costs, salaries and other expenses in the production of films have increased, as everything else has. The £1, £3 and £5, therefore, mean in terms of labour, artists and materials, substantially less than when the Act was passed in 1938. We therefore ask the House to approve these figures being brought more into line with present costs by an increase in each case of 50 per cent. That is to say, the £1 labour cost minimum will become 30s., the £3 will become £4 10s. and the £5 for the quota will become £7 10s.
If the House approves these Orders a further Order will be laid before it in the near future dealing with what is called the monetary quota. That quota is a means given to renters for fulfilling their quota, not by footage but by cost. It is obvious that, having made these alterations owing to changed costs of films, the Regulations

under the monetary quota should be brought into line. Therefore, early next year an amendment of the Regulations will be laid before the House, and I hope will have its approval. I trust that I have explained this matter as clearly as the House thinks is necessary. It is a complicated one, but I hope that the House will approve both these Orders.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Unfortunately the atmosphere that has been created does not lend itself to bringing the best out of the Debate on these Orders. I do not complain of that, except that the House and the country will not only have to be concerned with what is going on in many parts of the world, but will have to be concerned with what is going on at home if Britain is to become the country that some of us are hoping it will be after this war. We are now considering an important question. It is one to which the House needs to direct its attention, and I desire to make a few observations in order to stimulate further interest in the question. These Orders mark a further stage in the encouragement of Birtish films. They are introduced under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1938, which places a big responsibility upon the Board of Trade. In my view, however, they have not fulfilled that responsibility to the extent that they should have done. Before we allow these Orders to pass we should receive more explanations than we have received and assurances in regard to the future operations of the Orders.
The film industry is now a vast industry. In the main, it serves the community for entertainment, but it also has educational value, and the potentialities of the film industry from an educational point of view cannot be measured. These Orders prove that the war has narrowed our approach to the consideration of this industry and that we are still looking at it through the perspective drawn for us by 1940 conditions, such as the requisition of studio space and the difficult questions of labour in which we have been involved. I understand that the Order fixes the quota until 1948, which means another four years. Frankly, I do not like that, and I hope we are not going back to the 1939 standard. This country has made a mighty contribution in the world battle for freedom, and we have no right to look upon our problems through the perspective that 1939 draws for us. We are hoping


that Britain will become more active and greater than ever, and therefore we are not satisfied to approach this question of an important industry which the quotas are catering for in that way.
I consider—and my view has been confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary's speech—that the Board of Trade are too pessimistic about the future prospects of the British film industry. No one can deny that the market is there. There is more goodwill now for this country throughout the world than there has ever been in our history. Therefore, we ought to cater for that goodwill by the manufacture of more British films. I suppose that the chief handicap for the Board of Trade will be the monopoly ownership of films upon which a report has been prepared, which I shall refer to later. The next handicap, especially at present, is the lack of production capacity and the supply of technicians. Under these Orders, what is to be the Board's policy on the points I have mentioned particularly in regard to production capacity and technicians? In my view, too much is being taken out of the industry. With more of the takings ploughed back into the industry it could be made more efficient to cater for the needs of the people than it has been up to the present. It is the Board's duty to see that more capital is put into the industry. If that were done we could increase our production capacity to a very great extent.
The industry in its modern form is relatively young, employing relatively young men. The result is that it has relatively suffered more as the result of its key technicians being taken into the Armed Forces than any other industry. Has not the time arrived when, seeing that we are receiving huge reinforcements from the United States and other countries, key technicians should be released so that they can be preparing to embark upon a large scale expansion in the film industry immediately on the termination of hostilities? This mechanised war has made our young men more technically minded than ever in the past, and after the war there will be potentially more technicians at the service of the country than ever in the past. Therefore, the release of some key technicians now would be a good contribution to full employment and to catering for the people's needs.
Even before the war we had technicians and producers who compared favourably,

I understand, with those of any other country in the world. Many of them were in the forefront in the film industry of the world. As a result of the developments that have taken place, particularly during the war, many Government Departments want films. I hope that this tendency will be increased after the war. The Minister of Education will also be requiring films. The film is of great educational value, and we have not used it in the schools yet to the proper extent. The achievements shown in the White Paper on Britain's War Effort might also be made into a film. In view of that, may I ask whether the percentages in these orders are adequate to meet our needs?
It might be said that the studios available are fully occupied and that we cannot increase our output. Then, to what extent can we increase our studio capacity without affecting our war effort? If hon. Members turn to this report, they will get an answer to this question. We see there that eleven of the pre-war studios are not being used at all. Surely the time has arrived when technicians should be released, or men employed who were technicians and who have been released because of being maimed or otherwise invalided. We ought to be using more studios than we are using at the present time.

Captain Waterhouse: When the hon. Member says that studios are not being used at all, no doubt he means for the production of films. They are used for other purposes.

Mr. Smith: I do not want any misunderstanding. I thought I had made that quite clear. That was the point I had intended to make. It is a very important point because, under these Orders, we should be enabled to cater for our needs to a greater extent if the studios were being used.

Wing-Commander James: I would point out to the hon. Member that without the increase of personnel, the studio space could not be occupied.

Mr. Smith: I thought that these questions, upon which I have briefly touched, were linked together. If my hon. and gallant Friend is just emphasising or underlining what I am saying, I am very


thankful for his support. Before we pass from these Orders, we are entitled to know what is being done about the need to increase studio capacity and about the need for the release of technicians, in order that they may be employed in those studios. I ask those questions for many reasons and because, in my view—although, unfortunately, most people do not seem to realise it yet—this country will be involved in a big battle, as soon as hostilities terminate, in regard to our export trade. Films can be very effective overseas canvassers. Seeing that we have such limited capacity, compared with some other countries, and that we shall be involved in that big export battle, we ought to be manufacturing as many films as we possibly can, so as to send them out to do work, that individuals did in the old days.
Too many films cater for emotions in the people that should not be stimulated to the extent that they have been for many years. Let me emphasise that Hollywood life is not a natural life. The world could not be run on Hollywood's conception of life. I am no kill-joy; far from it, but it is all a matter of degree. I am concerned with the effect upon the lives of our young people of too many films coming from Hollywood, especially on Saturday afternoons when you can see thousands of young children, from working class areas in particular, going to matinees and seeing films which they ought not to see. They ought to be seeing films of an educational character, or films bringing the best out of life rather than films which cater for the emotions. In my view, box office receipts should not come first, either with the film industry or with the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has a very serious responsibility to see that there is a great improvement in this respect.
I believe that the films should more accurately reflect the real life of the British people and British ideas. They should be made up to suit our tastes, and to assist in the maintenance or the improvement of our own standards. During the war there has been what amounts to a standstill agreement in regard to the output of films. Can we be given an assurance that it is intended as a result of these Orders to produce more films that will reflect British ideas and tastes? During the war some

excellent documentary, films have been produced and some excellent short films. I have in mind "Power in the Highland" for one. I purposely listened to as many people as I possibly could while I was watching that film. The educational value of that film was a great lesson to me. Another film was on the building of the pre-fabricated ports. All people who have seen that film are bound to have derived a great amount of satisfaction from it. No matter how well the story may have been printed in books, or how good the photographs shown in the newspapers, the film proved that printing cannot be compared to the screen.
Then it was our privilege to see in Westminster Hall the films that dealt with Canadian civil aviation, Russian foreign policy and one or two others. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is the intention of the Board, under these Orders, to have more films of this character and to have more films of industries of our country, like mining, cotton and pottery. As I have said, we shall be involved in a big export trade battle, and in industries that cater for trades, like cotton and pottery, a few films made in the language of other countries, or made in our own language and then adjusted to suit the language of other countries, could be sent to many parts of the world, where they would have a very good effect. In the occupied countries, German films were shown for many years. I understand that the effect of those films has been greater than many of us have realised. Are we now not under an obligation to provide a quota of British films in order to remove that damage done by the German films while they were in countries like France and Belgium? I saw a film a few weeks ago entitled "A Song to Remember." That film is a credit to all who have had anything to do with its production. There are great lessons from it and great character is brought out in it. I would like to see that kind of film encouraged more in our country, provided that we can have some assurance with regard to the points I have raised, we shall facilitate the passage of these Orders.
I have to add a few words in conclusion. This report was issued in July of this year. The first thing I ought to say is that there was then serving on the Committee Mr. Philip Guedalla. We all regret that he has passed away since the report was published. I understand


from friends of mine that he was a very public-spirited mart and his death is very regrettable. As we are giving brief consideration to a number of issues raised in this report, perhaps we ought to place on record that we appreciate the work that he has done. I know that it would be out of order to discuss this report in general, but there are a few points made in it which are relevant, when we are considering the passage of these Orders. It is upon those points that I want to conclude. The chairman of the Committee directed a letter to the President of the Board of Trade, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following extract:
The Council have carefully considered the report of the Committee and unanimously accept its broad conclusions.
They adopted the report and transmitted it to the Board of Trade for urgent consideration. That was five months ago. We are entitled to know to-day what the Board are doing with regard to this matter. The letter continues:
I am glad to say that this resolution was passed unanimously, 15 of a possible maximum of 20 members of the Council being present.
The report deals with serious tendencies in the monopoly of the cinematograph film industry. Before we part with the Orders, we would like some assurance that the Board of Trade are dealing with the issues raised in the report, in order that the British film industry can make a great contribution to the needs of our country, to the maintenance of the good will which now exists towards us throughout the world, and to increasing the educational value that can be derived from films.

1.12 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I apologise for rising so soon after my colleague on this Bench but, as it will be seen, I am in some dissonance with him, although he, as usual, put his points with the utmost fairness. I have a comparatively large holding in the film industry, and I am a director in a number of principal companies which have been referred to in this report. My hon. Friend has very properly dealt with some aspects of the report which are in Order and he has steered clear of others. Let me say that I speak without consultation with my colleagues in the industry. I represent only my own point of view. I

am not a believer in a Member coming down to this House and saying: "I speak on behalf of those associated with me." I believe that the Member should speak for himself.
I want to say in a public manner and with some authority that the industry, and especially the interests with which I am connected, would welcome at the earliest possible opportunity the fullest possible discussion of the report to which my hon. Friend referred. We cannot discuss it now, The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in some respects the whole of the report would not be in Order. Since Mr. Rank, with whom I am proud to be associated, has been inferentially criticised in this report, I maintain that it is only fair that there should be a discussion in this House on the report. Those who take a view different from that of the report would be able to put their point of view. That is the only thing I have to say in opposition to my hon. Friend except that as he spoke of monopoly we, who take a different view, believe that, if we had a discussion, we could show that monopoly of the kind to which he referred does not, in fact, exist.
I would like to support his request that information should be given to the House on the matters which he put forward. I hope that when we have an opportunity of discussing the report the discussion will take the form of a Motion on which we can discuss this nascent industry in all its branches—production, distribution and exhibition. It is high time there was such a discussion in this House. We, in the industry, believe that there will be opportunities after the war on the lines laid down by my hon. Friend, of getting a very considerable export of British films. The success which one or two British films have recently met with, and the unsatisfied demand by the public to see them, would make one think that that is so. Perhaps I might mention one or two other matters referred to by my hon. Friend. As to the exhibition of a type of film on a more moral level, in the first place, as my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary are aware—I think the Minister will confirm what I am going to say—there is to-day a pretty good voluntary censorship of films in this country, with the classification into two or three different enumerations.
If instead of a voluntary censorship there was a censorship, say under this


House, it would lead to endless trouble and a certain amount of, shall I say, undesirable political controversy. There would be questions asked of the Minister why such and such a film had been permitted. I think the House was wise originally to agree, I think unanimously, to a voluntary censorship. You cannot really—I must put this frankly—improve the type of public demand, that is you cannot get the public to ask for a type of film which is better from a moral or elevating point of view—if it be charged against the industry, which I do not concede, that there is too low a level—without an improvement in public taste. That is much more an educational matter than anything else, and the history of the industry, as everyone connected with it knows, is strewn with the corpses, the casualties, of the people who have endeavoured to produce something which in their opinion was infinitely better to see than anything anyone else had produced, but which people refused to see. It is not a question, as some people seem to think, of a conspiracy on the part of companies or owners of cinemas to prevent them being shown. It is because they have not a box office value.
It is important to deal with this matter in a way which I hope would avoid political controversy. I see no reason why there should be any. Some films must obviously be produced under Government auspices, others by private enterprise. The best way to improve taste is therefore to show films to schools and educational establishments in the first place. If we did that I think the opportunity in the future would be great. I view with alarm films of an educational nature which come to this country from America. I do not think it is particularly good to have a man expounding something in an American accent which the children do not understand instead of in Cockney or South Country or some other accent, which they do. That is very important, because it reassures the child and makes it feel, "That is a background I understand." Without consultation with the industry I can say that I know they are anxious to do everything possible to encourage the production of such films. I think my hon. Friend can confirm that.
My hon. Friend made one most useful suggestion, which I would like to support,

that is, there should be a quota of British films in occupied countries. That is of enormous importance, and I would like most strongly to support that. I hope my hon. Friend will bring it to the notice of the powers that be. I apologise for the rather desultory nature of these remarks. I can say, as one with very considerable interests in the industry, that we welcome in this House the fullest possible discussion of this matter. We hope we shall have a full Debate on the whole film industry, and let us see, if that be done, whether we cannot, in the spirit of the speeches which my hon. Friend and I have just made, reach something like a common conclusion, so that this great industry may be of benefit to the country and be a valuable part of our export trade.

1.20 p.m.

Wing-Commander James: The noble Lord has disclosed a personal interest in the film industry. I must also disclose a very negligibly small one. My interest is really one in order to try and do what I can to help the industry. I thought the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Smith) made a most admirable speech. My interruption was to seek to underline a remark he made. In fact, until he came to his concluding paragraph I found nothing with which I was not in almost complete agreement. As to his concluding paragraph, I take a rather middle course between his views and the views expressed by the noble Lord who followed him, The Board of Trade cannot yet have pronounced upon the Palache Report since it is still under review by the industry itself.

Earl Winterton: I did not make that point. I did not say that the Board should report. I said there should be an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter. This House is, after all, the grand inquest of the nation.

Wing-Commander James: I said I was taking a middle course. I was still referring to the hon. Member for Stoke. I agree with the noble Lord on that point also. I believe that when this House comes to discuss the report, as I hope it will, it will be found that there is a perfectly good middle way which I think would probably suggest itself to the Board also. I am confident that this House will very gladly pass these two


little Orders. They are a very small step but a welcome step. It should be remembered in fairness to the British industry that twice in the lifetime of this young industry Hollywood has received an immense adventitious advantage. In 1914, and again in 1939, the British industry was virtually reduced to a standstill at moments of particularly important technical progress and expansion. That has given Hollywood an unfair advantage twice within a short time. I do not think the British industry is being unreasonable in seeking Government help to overtake at least the arrears. In 1948 there will be a new Act. It will be out of Order to refer to that, and I will not do so in any way, but until 1948 I think the public and the industry are entitled to ask the Board of Trade to try and improve the position for us vis-à-vis overseas interests, particularly having regard to the enormously greater extent to which we are still mobilised compared with them.

Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Member does not know that there are now certain arrangements by which there should be a much better chance in future for British films to be shown in the Dominions and Colonies.

Wing-Commander James: I was coming to that. Both the hon. Member for Stoke and the Minister referred to quotas. On that point I think the Board of Trade have shown very marked leniency. It is quite true that exhibitors were under some difficulty in including sufficient British films to satisfy requirements but I think they have magnified those difficulties considerably. I hope the Board will not be quite so kind to defaulters in the next period.
I am bound to say that I think that in the last two or three years the Board have taken a very live and helpful interest in the British film industry. The Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President are both keenly alive to the importance of the film, but when we were preoccupied with other things there were cases when British interests were substantially overlooked—I put it no higher than that. There is a further justification for these Orders that there has been for many years, and particularly during the war, marked discrimination against British films, particularly in America, and although excuses are

made in the technical Press which sound very plausible, they do not ring true to people who know the selling methods of Hollywood. I do not suggest for one moment that Hollywood is a fair sample of American industry. This is a very young industry, it is perhaps a little lacking in traditions as yet. I believe that in America and in this country this industry will settle down during the next decade into a sound, great and creditable industry.
I think it would be in Order to show how important it is that the 1948 Film Bill should be fair and reciprocal. I believe that under great difficulties, great shortage of personnel and supplies and the other usual wartime obstacles, the industry here is making a very real effort to put its house in order. I think that is shown in many parts of the Palache Report. I welcome the searchlight on the industry. I do not think the industry will in fact emerge too badly from the scrutiny to which it is being subjected. We do not want cover for monopolies, nor do I believe that the House would give that. What we do want cover for is genuine British production, particularly by the small people.
The hon. Member for Stoke referred to the documentary producers in this country. There we have a great tradition. In certain types of film France leads the world, in certain types America has hitherto led the world. In certain types we have always led the world, that is in the documentary. That is particularly the kind of film for the small producer, the small company, the small man. That is the industry we need to foster as the basis for an expanding British film industry—the Ministry of Information type of film. The public demand for that sort of film is bound to grow. The quota and future increased quotas should secure guarantees re an expanded world market for the skill of the British film producer. I welcome these two little Orders for what they are, and for the promise that they portend.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) but I wish to make a protest against the Quota Amendment Order. My objection to this Order is that it confirms a curtailment of production in the British film industry for the years 1945–6, 1946–7, and 1947–8 terminating on 31st


March, 1948. These reductions have, of course, been necessary during the war, and will still be necessary for some time in the future, but I contend it is against public policy for these reductions to be extended, willy nilly, to the years 1946–7, 1947–8. Under the 1938 Act, the renters quota in 1945, had the Act been operating normally, would have been 27½ per cent. That is reduced to 20 per cent. In 1946–7 it would have been 30 per cent. That is reduced to 22½ per cent. In 1947–8 it would have been 30 per cent. That is reduced to 25 per cent. These percentages may not seem very much when we look at them on paper or hear them quoted to us. Actually when the number of cinemas in the country and the amount of footage involved are considered, they will be seen to be really very large percentages. At this stage of the war I do not see the necessity for such a drastic extension. I understand that the cinema industry, representing among other interests, of course, the British producers, met the Board of Trade, and agreed upon these quota reductions.
It must be borne in mind that these reductions, at the cost of British producers, have benefited American and other film producers very considerably. It must be borne in mind, too, that the British producing industry is closely interlocked with the distributing and exhibiting sides of the industry. Thus, the British producing industry is not solely interested in producing British films: it is also interested in distributing and exhibiting American and other films as well as British. It is not wholly to its disadvantage to have a continuance of curtailment of British films, because what it loses on the British swings it makes up on the American roundabouts. It is well to bear this aspect of the problem in mind. But from the point of view of giving employment to British workers, of increasing British home output for home consumption as well as for export, and putting across the British way of life, every curtailment is to be deplored.
What is the real reason why the industry cannot produce sufficient films to carry out the intentions of the maxima in the 1938 Act? The main one is shortage of floor space. It is the Government who are responsible for that shortage, because they have commandeered a great many

studios for storage of various kinds and also for production of war materials. Well and good—or perhaps I might say, well and bad. But we should do wrong in assuming that the Government, if they tried seriously, could not make other arrangements for storage in 1946–7 and 1947–8, without encroaching upon an important industry to this tremendous extent. I understand that the position in 1943 was that there were 900 defaults on a basis of between 4,000 and 5,000 cinemas—when the curtailed quota was at the same figure as is proposed for 1945–6—that is to say, the minimum 20 per cent.—and that only 50 per cent. of the required 150 long films could be produced. That is a ridiculous position. It is contended, and quite properly, that to lift the quota percentage to the maximum figure would lead to a still more ridiculous position. But I fail to see why, if one has to be ridiculous anyhow, one should not go the whole hog, and be a little more ridiculous still.
What should we be doing if we allowed the quota figures for 1946–7 and 1947–8 to remain the maxima under the Act—namely, 30 per cent. for each year? We should be performing an act of faith. We are constantly being asked to perform acts of faith in this House. We should be performing an act of faith in the great and prosperous development of a great industry. We should be opening a gate, instead of, under this Order, shutting a door. How can we say, at this stage of the war, what the conditions in the industry will be in 1947 and 1948? It is absolutely impossible to forecast with anything like approximate accuracy. If we cannot pretend to do even that, I think it is better to leave well alone, and allow the 1930 Act to operate. Nobody is penalised by it. If the renters and exhibitors cannot supply their quota, they are not penalised, provided it is commercially impossible for them to do so.
We want full employment for our people, and the film industry is a huge employer of persons in every class of the community. Not only that, but it is, as the Noble Lord pointed out, an ambassador. It exhibits—sometimes badly, I admit, sometimes well, and sometimes very well indeed—the British way of life. I do not think we dare neglect what chances we have of putting the British case over to the world in general—and not only to the world in general, but to the


British people at home here. These chances may come, and this Order deliberately shuts the door on them. I would like to remind the House that we should have had the finest film industry in the world if we had not been fighting the Germans during the years 1914–18. That gave our American cousins a free field. I am not in any way complaining of that, but it happens to be a fact. They sent us their films, and they took our money in exchange, and they built up a tremendous industry in their own country. They built up huge reserves of capital; they were able to endow film scientific research; and our own film industry was in the doldrums until the passing of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938. That Act has been immensely beneficial, and I do not want to see it whittled down by a fraction of one per cent. for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary.
I am afraid the truth is that the Board of Trade have got so used to controlling this, that, and the other, that they just cannot refrain. They are rather like a dram drinker, who is not content to secure the supply of liquor that he wants from day to day or from week to week, but seeks to obtain the largest possible supply for the longest possible period. I am a teetotaller in the matter of controls. I quite agree that it is useful to have a few about the house, for medicinal purposes, but I do not go beyond that. To extend this Order until 31st March, 1936, should have been quite sufficient; to extend it until 31st March, 1948, is almost ridiculous. I would like to draw attention to the question—because it affects the matter in some way—of the dollar-sterling exchange. If we cannot get our film quota up, we shall be exporting hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling to the United States. I know what the answer of my right hon. and gallant Friend will be. He will say "No, we shall not be exporting them; they will be passed to sterling balances, as at present, which are blocked," May I explain how this money will be exported, because I think it has a considerable bearing on the whole position? It will be spent here, in this country, on acquiring the rights of British film subjects. That is how these balances are being used to-day. It is almost a racket. But when the subjects so acquired come to be made, they will be made in America. The value of a film,

economically speaking, acrues to that country which makes the film, and not to the country which is the abode of the author or the owner of the rights. That country certainly benefits to an infinitesimal extent—to the extent, in fact, to which it is interested in the estate of the author or the owner, but no more. The economic value of the film is the expenditure incurred in the making of the film, and not in the acquiring of the subject.
I have shown how the exigencies of the war have made the predecessor of this Order—the Order which is now in force—very much of a farce, because production has been driven down well below the statutory minimum. But in this period which ends in 1948, which we hope will see peace reigning again in the world, there may well be as swift an acceleration in the industry as there has been a slowing down. This Order, which I maintain serves no useful purpose at all, puts the hall mark of depression on the industry until 31st March, 1948. In my view, it would be better to leave the Act of 1938 where it is. It was never designed, I admit, to meet the emergencies of war; but it has safeguards, and no one has been penalised. This Order is at the moment, I am sorry to say, a piece of honest but misguided legal pedantry, trying, but failing, to relate the 1938 Act to the realities of to-day. That is the present position. But I maintain that in a couple of years this Order may well have become a menace.

1.43 p.m.

Lady Apsley: I am glad to be able to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has said. I am sure we are all very satisfied that this Debate on the new quotas should have brought out a very great deal of information regarding the difficulties of showing good films, not only in this country but overseas, at the present time. I speak as a member of the Council which my right hon. Friend set up for the film industry, and on which I represent the British public. On that Council we all appreciate the difficulties, not only in respect of the lack of technicians, but particularly in respect of the lack of studio space, which my noble Friend referred to in his short but excellent speech. That is really the crux of the matter to-day. Those outstanding documentary films produced by the Ministry of Information and referred


to by my hon. Friend, as we all know, have been produced under very great difficulties, and a great many of the smaller producers, who have done such excellent work in the past, are only waiting for an opportunity to put their most excellent wares before the public and before the overseas market.
I would add my few words to what has been said about the value of that overseas market. My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the prestige that those films are gaining for this country overseas. Nothing that we can do should be left undone to help in every way possible to send more and better films overseas. I question if the Board of Trade is doing sufficient to help both as regards documentaries and the longer, more expensive, types which are now beginning to be made. I refer particularly to the new film "Henry V," and I hope hon. Members will go to that film in order to see what can be done under very great difficulties in this country at the present time. I say "in this country," advisedly, for through lack of official assistance, such a film had largely to be made and screened outside this country. It is rather disastrous that we now have the irony of Henry V's Battle of Agincourt being represented by, I believe, the Eire Army. I am sure they did not charge at Agincourt with their lances in the upright position, and I think there are many other small details which some of us might criticise, but, by and large, that film is really a magnificent example of "British prestige," such as my hon. Friend referred to, and I hope the film will go throughout the world to show what we are thinking, what we are doing and what we like in the cinema world.
I give one other small example to show how important this is. Many years ago I was out in the back-blocks of Australia and was invited to witness some films to be shown in the open air to the local neighbourhood. Everybody gathered from far and near, including some 1,500 black aboriginals, many of whom were seeing a film for the first time. I watched their reactions. Unfortunately, the films shown were mostly very bad American films, and I felt extreme shame at that time for the prestige of this country. Luckily, there was one British film, a short documentary at the end showing the launching of a ship, which just saved

the situation. That sort of situation should never be allowed to recur, and I heartily endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) that we must not go back to the 1939 standard of British films, because something vital to the prestige of our people is at stake. We used to think that trade followed the flag, but I feel that, in future, it may follow the film, and, therefore, British films must not lag behind.

1.49 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I want to take up a remark made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I am sorry my Noble Friend is not in his place, but nothing I am going to say I am sure will in any way offend him. He said, I believe, that public taste sets the standard and that the industry cannot affect public taste. I believe I am correct in thus stating his view, but perhaps any hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong in this respect. The Noble Lord suggested, when considering the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), that public taste could be influenced in the sense that rehearsals could be given to school children and so on and that, possibly, good public taste could be built up in that way. I do not altogether agree with my Noble Friend. I think, perhaps, that it is true that if the industry were to put on a particular type of film, then, indeed, the public would not go to see it, and that they would say: "We are not accustomed to seeing this; we do not like it and we will not go to see it." But I hope the industry will carefully consider the suggestion that it can, bit by bit, guide the public taste by elevating the films here and there, bit by bit, so that, gradually, and almost unconsciously, the public taste would improve.
The hon. Lady who has just spoken mentioned the great British film "Henry V," recently produced. The hon. Lady said it was a great example of British film art. I think she is right in this respect. It is an example of the spectacular kind, but it is more than that. It is an attempt—although, personally, I do not necessarily agree with it in all respects and I do not accept it as the type of film that I would prefer to see myself—it is an attempt to get the British people to appreciate the great poet and playwright William Shakespeare of world renowned


fame. Gradually, I think the industry can lead away from the spectacular effects to really genuine "Shakespeare" with just the background against which we are accustomed to see his plays. The Battle of Agincourt is displayed at length. We all know that Shakespeare dismisses the Battle of Agincourt in one line, and does not describe it at all. He suggested that, now the battle is on, let us await the result. I do not remember the exact line.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I correct my hon. Friend? Surely, the whole of Act IV is concerned with the Battle of Agincourt?

Dr. Thomas: If my hon. Friend will look it up, he will see that I am right.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am not quite sure how the Battle of Agincourt comes in on this Order. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly explain to me, I shall be very much obliged.

Dr. Thomas: Dr. Thomas: I was following up the hon. Lady and the Noble Lord, who said that you cannot, as it were, fix the public taste, and, from that, I developed my argument and I am trying to show that the public taste can be affected. The Battle of Agincourt is spectacularly displayed in this particular film, although, I believe, someone has said, the best actor was the horse. I do think that the industry could guide the public taste in this matter, and I could apply that argument to many other examples, but, in view of your suggestion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not follow it, although I had "Anthony and Cleopatra" in mind as another excellent play which could be put on in a very excellent way, and in which the battle of Actium, which is not reproduced in the play, could be represented by model battleships in a toy bath. By that means, Shakespeare could be gradually brought home to our people. This would affect the public taste, and it is so essential to do that.
So few of our people know or understand Shakespeare at all. They know very little about him; they have only just heard of him. If you consider the number of seats available in the theatres of our country, and if they were filled every day for Shakespearean plays alone, it would then only affect about five per cent. of the people, but the cinemas are filled with millions of people every day. We

must consider these matters very carefully, because it is useless having Education Bills and so on unless we can improve the public taste in regard to entertainment—a good test.
I pass on to the Orders themselves. It has been necessary for my hon. Friend to come to this House to fix a quota in the way he has suggested. Obviously, the film industry has fallen behind during the war. Obviously, it must have done so during the early years of the war, when our fate was uncertain and when, indeed, we could not possibly have considered following these matters up; we could not then go on with the production of films. But I do think that that time is past and has been past for a year or more. I think that last year, and the year before, we should have been considering the preparation of our industry for the future, and some of the reasons for this view have already been stated. They were clearly put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke, in the very excellent speech with which he opened the Debate and which was in more or less complete agreement with what I have in mind, I do not remember before agreeing to such an extent with my hon. Friend.
I think that this production should now be increased and that the Board of Trade should get the industry together and every effort should be made to put it on a sound progressive basis. I consider that this is a fundamental part of our whole endeavour at this juncture of the war, and that it is bound up with our future, our prosperity and our prestige, and should be regarded as an integral part of the war effort at this stage of the conflict. I think it is unfortunate that the Orders are fixed as far ahead as the year 1948. Why then is it so important to see that the film industry is put on a sound basis from now onwards? It should have been considered before, and the Board of Trade have appeared neglectful in my opinion. The first reason is that, in view of our world trade, nothing could be so valuable to our salesmen as the exportation of British films throughout the countries with whom we shall have to trade when the war is over. Trade films should be made, and should advertise British goods and show British methods of manufacture, including all the processes of manufacture and so on. It would he an excellent thing to bring the film industry in to help in the future prosperity of our country. Hon.


Members, I am sure, can think of many ways in which films could be utilised for pushing forward British trade and British business. This policy would, therefore, result in increased employment at home and increased prosperity in the industries which the films would advertise. It is essential that we should look upon films in the light of their being part of our efforts and endeavours from now on—one of the weapons, as it were, of our future advance in the world.
The next reason is because films will be excellent things from the point of view of our prestige, which the hon. Member for Stoke himself mentioned as a matter of importance. I will not use the word "propaganda." I have never liked the word "propaganda," which always suggests to me deception and the leading of a man along a path which he does not know he is going and along which he would not go if he were not deceived. But they can be used from the point of view of prestige. It is essential, now that our Colonial Empire is to have the benefits of the Colonial Development Act and will be progressing slowly along the path of constitutional government, for us to show them the greatness of our own country and the great elements which make up the British character and the advantage and generosity of our own rule. Suitable films could be shown in the backward Colonies in order to teach them that at least our code of life is highly desirable and should be emulated. We should use them in the liberated countries. We are liberating countries but we are not ready with our films.

What an opportunity to show the liberated countries what we in this country have done against the German menace and how we stood alone for a long time, showing them, if possible, episodes from the Battle of Britain. We could show them the war story of our common people during the blitz, and even build it up into a story of the family who went through this nightmare night after night, when the siren sounded at 9 o'clock for 88 nights or thereabout, the warning lasting into the early hours of the morning. We could show how they lost their homes and how they stuck to their posts with that grim tenacity which is so much a part of our character. What an opportunity has been lost and how we could

have impressed those countries by showing Great Britain standing like a rock in a stricken world displaying those qualities which other races should seek to emulate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can hardly on this occasion go into all the various battles of the war. I would ask the hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Orders we are discussing, rather than to the general subject of the war.

Dr. Thomas: I thought that, following the general Debate and the opening speech of the hon. Member, I was in Order possibly in going into a little more detail than I might have done if I had not been led astray by the hon. Member for Stoke.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not lead the hon. Member astray.

Dr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Member will not take that remark amiss, because he spoke so well. These are the uses to which we can put our films. These are the great advantages which may be effected if the Board of Trade now summoned a conference of the film industry seeing whether studios used for other purposes could be got back into their proper use and seeing whether technicians can be trained and key men released from the Army in order to forward this good work, which is one of our great and valuable assets and which we should utilise to the utmost in our future endeavours. It is unfortunate that these Orders have been fixed for 1948. It is pushing it a little too far forward and shows a lack of initiative on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department. My concluding remarks are a plea to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to do all he can to forward the success of this industry, not only from the point of view of the industry itself, but from the point of view of a healthy trade and the glory of our own country.

2.6 p.m.

Sir Alfred Beit: I imagine that there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber now, who have come here to listen to certain other subjects which are to be debated. I see the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) who, I imagine, is here to listen to the Debate on the Church of England Measure.

Mr. Pritt: Will the hon. Member stay for it, too?

Sir A. Beit: In spite of that, we should not dismiss too rapidly the very important Orders which are before us and which will tie up the future of the British film industry for rather a greater number of years than most hon. Members who have spoken so far would desire. We have had, for the most part, some very clear speeches, especially those from hon. Members who are associated with the film industry, but in spite of their experiences there are certain complexities and obscurities about the British film industry, with which I am not myself in any way connected, which are very difficult to understand. For instance, on the one hand, we had the spectacle before the war of vast new studios being erected and great capital projects being promoted for the production of films and yet, on the other hand, in 1938, the President of the Board of Trade had to come to this House to say that this very rapidly expanding industry was not able to keep up to the quotas previously laid down and that those quotas would have to be reduced.
Again, on the one hand, we have seen certain individuals leaping to fame, wealth and prominence as a result of their association with this industry and yet it seems impossible to-day that more than one-fifth, if indeed that amount, of the films shown throughout the country could have been of British origin. If you open country or provincial newspapers, as I do frequently, week after week and read the advertisements of films to be shown in any town in the succeeding week, it is impossible to believe that anything like 20 per cent. of the films which are being shown in those towns are of British origin. If I may speak in terms of the pre-war period, it is, in spite of the protection given by the quota and the device known to the producers as the quota "quickey," which caused a number of rather undesirable films to be made, impossible to take advantage of the protection, which, we have been told by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, will subsequently be somewhat modified.
One really important reason which has only just been touched upon for the absence of a sufficient number of quality British films is the lack of opportunity in overseas markets. We were told by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander

James) that there was positive discrimination in the United States against British films, and, from what I have been able to ascertain, I think he is right. I believe that certain very important films, those which have enjoyed the greatest success in this country, have not been shown at all in the United States or have been relegated, as we used to relegate French films in London, to some small cinema where there was no opportunity for the great masses of the public to see the film.
It is not only in the United States that this applies. I have just returned from a visit to South Africa, and there I found a most deplorable absence of British films, not only of feature films but of the shorts or documentaries about which a certain amount has been said this afternoon. There seemed to be some evidence that a number of short films, including those shown as being of official origin, like Ministry of Information films, were brought over but subsequently not used. When you take into account the fact that we are not able to get an adequate overseas market for the films we make, and further bear in mind—and I think I am right in what I am going to say—that practically the entire American film industry was exempted from the call-up when the United States entered the war, and was able, therefore, to carry on very much as before, it is not difficult perhaps to see why we have not been able to satisfy what I am sure is the growing demand for British films. It is very disappointing, nevertheless, that, in spite of these difficulties, we should have to fact up to the fact that for the next five years something of the order of 25 per cent. is the most to which we can aspire.
I join most heartily with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), who urged the need for greater floor space and that more technicians should be released. We cannot go as far the the United States in exempting our entire industry, but surely the time has come when we should enable the industry to manufacture that kind of film which would enable it, in terms of ordinary and normal competition, to place on the market enough footage to be able not only to fulfil the quota regulations but to increase them. The quota provides the amount of production, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will find it possible for the industry to proceed in the right direction to the position it should occupy.

2.13 p.m.

Major Procter: As one who has had some experience in the making of films and who is still interested, I should like to set out one or two reflections which have occurred to me as a result of reading these two Orders we are discussing to-day. Unquestionably, on the technical side we are equal to the Americans in production, script writers, actors; we are equal in anything that Hollywood produces. Many people have tried in this country to make a success of British films. Many have failed and large sums of money have been lost. Why is this? We have the finest landscape scenery in the world. We have that peculiar quality of voice which makes English sound like a flute as against the American steam whistle. There is no raucous sound in the voices of British actors, and their technique is second to none. Indeed, many of the greatest stars in American pictures have received their entire artistic training in this country. Therefore it is not for the want of apparatus, technicians or actors that the film industry lags behind the American, and for its protection requires a very large increased quota. Let us face up to facts and state quite frankly that the British film industry for many years has had a very raw deal from the American film producers, the American theatres, the American distributors and indeed from the whole of the American film industry. All these have dealt very harshly with the film products made in this country.
The failure of British films, as I have said before, is not due to their lack of artistic perfection; it is due to the fact that the American companies are doing their very best to make it impossible for the English film to be a competitor to the American production. To illustrate this point let me show the House exactly what happens on the financial side to a film that is made in this country and a comparable film made in America. To produce a first-class picture in America it costs about £150,000—I mean a good average film, because you can spend anything you like on a picture up to £1,000,000. Owing to the large area and the increased number of cinemas in America, that picture grosses £400,000 before ever it leaves America. The distributors take from the producers for the cost of distribution one-third of the gross revenue, so that if the film grosses in

America £400,000, £133,000 is paid for distribution. Deduct the cost of production, £150,000, and before the film leaves America for further financial ventures there is a nett profit to the American producer of approximately £117,000. It is then sent to this country and nets a further profit of £60,000.
Now if that same picture is made in this country, with the same actors and the same sets, so that it is identical in every respect with the American picture, what happens then? Let us look at this British made picture. Being the same picture it will cost £150,000 to make. The gross receipts in England will be approximately £90,000. Deduct distribution charges and the net receipts will be £60,000, whereas the American picture makes £117,000 before it leaves America. An English film costing £150,000 to make loses £90,000 before it leaves these shores. If the British film is exported to America it will do well to make £10,000 in gross receipts. Excluding the small return from Empire markets, the loss on a first class British film is about £75,000 to £80,000. Why is there such a small return on British films in the United States? It is because British films are refused circuit runs; they are shown in the back-street cinemas of America. I know one British film which was judged in America as being the second-best picture in the world for that year. Great care was expended upon it when it was produced; it left these shores with a loss of over £90,000 although it was one of the best produced in this country. When it arrived in America it was only allowed to be shown in the smaller theatres. Its grossing in America was £10,000. The loss on that British picture regarded as the second-best produced picture in the world for that year resulted in a loss of many thousands of pounds to those who made it. With few exceptions that is the fate of first class British films in America.

Mr. E. P. Smith: May I ask the name of that film?

Major Procter: "Love from a Stranger." The root and core of the failure of British pictures is the fact that the American film executives see to it that the British picture gets no chance at all in America. That is the problem to which the Board of Trade should address its mind. It seems ridiculous, when we are exporting millions of pounds every


year for American films, when we give American-made pictures the run of the largest circuits, that we hesitate to compel the Americans to make films here. If they want to show their films in the British market, let them use some of the money which otherwise we would export to America, to make films in British studios. That is the solution to this quota problem. We carried out this when American money was frozen. American producers, in order to utilise this frozen money somehow, made pictures over here, and gave employment to our studio technicians and our actors.
Furthermore, in this country we permit our cinemas to be taken over by the American producers. It is the same in Australia and throughout the whole of the British Empire. The film has an educative influence and we have English goods to sell, but in the British Empire and the world the American goods get the best advertisement, the American culture is shown to everybody. By means of the cinema, the American influence is felt everywhere—even our English girls, due to American films, have come to think that American soldiers are nearly all Clark Gables or Rudolph Valentinos. Because we have not grasped the nettle firmly, and have not made up our minds to carry out a firm policy that will put the British film industry on its feet, we are losing millions a year besides loss of prestige. The Board of Trade should stand up to the American producers and say: "If you want to use the British market, then you must come over here, use your capital, give employment to our people, and make pictures on this side of the Atlantic, which show the British way of life." Only in this way will we save the millions we export every year and help to build up an industry which is all powerful in the fields of culture, trade and international relations.

2.25 p.m.

Captain Waterhouse: The discussion this afternoon has been rather wider than might have been expected on the somewhat narrow Orders which we are considering, but I certainly make no complaint at all about that; I think the discussion has been useful, and points have been raised in it which I shall be very happy to have considered. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) finished with an appeal which I think everyone in the House will feel to be a sound one, that

we should encourage Americans to make films here as far as possible, but in so doing let us not for one moment neglect the desirability of encouraging British subjects and British actors to make films here too, in order that we may make here—as has been stressed so much by various speakers in the Debate—films which reproduce abroad our British atmosphere and our British way of life.
The Noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) spoke of the film "Henry V," and gave the impression that it had been made in Ireland. I should like at once to correct that. The film was made almost entirely at the Denham Studios in London. The principal scenes made in Ireland were the Agincourt scenes. Unhappily, as my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will regret as much as I do, there are not very many heavy-weight hunters in condition in England just now, and it was necessary to go over there where, I understand, horses were loaned from the Irish Constabulary.

Mr. Pritt: In Southern or Northern Ireland?

Captain Waterhouse: In Southern Ireland, and the charge was filmed there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas), who is no longer in his place, made a very fullblooded attack on the Board of Trade over this matter, I thought. He said we were neglectful, that we had not taken any steps, that we were not ready, what an opportunity we had lost, and that we have shown a lack of initiative. He went on to say that this was at a time when we were standing alone in the world. I think possibly, if we had taken his advice, we might have been unable to continue to stand at all, for I think the House will agree with me that, desirable as films are, for the last three or four years it has been infinitely more desirable to have fighters even than films.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) opened this Debate with a most interesting and well-informed speech. Two of his main points were technicians and studio space—what could we do about releasing technicians? I can assure him that the Board of Trade are alive to the importance of this, but, of course, the film industry, though an important industry, is only one of many and this question of the return of technicians


to their old job is one of the most vexed and difficult that the Board of Trade have to handle. In consultation with the Ministry of Labour we are taking what steps we can, but the House will recollect the general approval accorded to the Government's demobilisation plans, and hon. Members will realise the danger of taking specialists out in any but very small numbers. On studio space, it is perfectly true that a comparatively large proportion of studios are now taken up for storage and other purposes, but there again the position of the cinema industry is not materially different from that of other industries. Something over 100,000,000 square feet of space have been taken over for storage purposes, and obviously, studios are particularly suitable for some forms of storage.
The Board of Trade are not neglectful of their duties. They are in constant touch with the Departments utilising these studios and I can promise the House that at the earliest moment the national interest allows we will see that they are released. My hon. Friend referred to the export value of films and, there, I completely agree with him. I fully realise the potential value of export films from this country and the negative value of the import of films to this country from America. As the Palache Report states, the American industry, before the war, were earning about 135,000,000 dollars for America by the export of their films. They sent here, in the years between 1939–43, films to the value, respectively, of 39,000,000 dollars, 43,000,000 dollars, 48,000,000 dollars, 70,000,000 dollars and 88,000,000 dollars. Import on such a scale must be a matter of concern for the Board of Trade, and I can assure the House that we are urgently pursuing ways and means, at this moment, of trying to encourage the production of films in this country. The House will realise that that is not possible on a large scale now, but as soon as those conditions have passed we will do what we can to help those in the industry who are anxious to produce here.

Sir A. Beit: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend tell us whether we are obliged to find dollars now for the import of these films from the United States, or are we to await the end of the war?

Major Procter: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend tell us why it is that whereas British producers have to pay Income Tax and E.P.T. on their profits, the Americans escape these taxes?

Captain Waterhouse: Were I to reply to that question, I am sure that I should be going far beyond the scope of this Order, which has nothing to do with the relative systems of taxation of the United States and Great Britain. The question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) was not quite so far afield, and in reply to it I can say that at present payments are being made by this country to the United States for all films rented here. In the early days of the war an embargo was put on, but that was released in part in 1942 and at present full payment is being made. We are paying for what we get. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) urged that at not too distant a date the Palache Report should be discussed in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke made a similar request. On that, quite clearly, I can say nothing, but I appreciate their reasons and no doubt in due course such a Debate may be valuable. But they will recollect that my right hon. Friend the President, in answer to a question recently, said that the trade were being consulted on this Report, and that it was not possible to make a Government statement until we had had the benefit of their views.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I know, of course, the reason why it is not possible to discuss the report now, but in view of the importance of this matter to the industry and a great interest which is taken in it—as has been evidenced by the many speeches we have had to-day—is it not time that the Government gave us a day to discuss the industry in full? Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bring that point to the attention of the powers that be?

Captain Waterhouse: I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, but on the other hand I think the House will agree that it would be an advantage to Members for us first to be in possession of the views of the industry on this extremely interesting and well thought out report.

Wing-Commander James: I appreciate my right hon. and gallant Friend's argument, but would it not help the House in being patient if he could give us an assurance that in the meantime nothing will be allowed to occur further to prejudice the position of the British film industry in the field of production and distribution?

Captain Waterhouse: I do not think any such assurance is necessary. I am not quite sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by the field of production, but as regards the field of distribution, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the President is already in possession of an assurance from two major groups of the industry, A. B. C. and Mr. Rank's group, that they will not further increase their holdings of cinemas.

Wing-Commander James: Does that apply to foreign interests? That is the point I have in mind.

Captain Waterhouse: It certainly does not; it applies only to the groups I have mentioned. Any other action outside those assurances would certainly come to the Board of Trade, and if we had powers I know that my right hon. Friend would not for a moment hesitate to intervene where necessary. Earlier, my hon. and gallant Friend asked that we should not be quite so kind to defaulters, to those unable to fulfil their quota. There, I must draw a clear distinction between those who are unable and those who are unwilling to fulfil their quotas. If it is impossible to get British films then it would be most inequitable and fruitless to bring prosecutions, because inability due to causes outside the control of the exhibitor is a complete defence for failing to comply with the quota. There are only two remedies which we have—first, to increase the number of British films produced or, second, to decrease the quota which we are demanding.
On this point my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) rather feared that we were confirming a curtailment. It is true that we were acknowledging a condition of shortage, but I do not think it is accurate to say that we were confirming a curtailment. We must clearly recognise the facts. My hon. Friend said that had we asked for a quota of 30 per cent. it would have been a simple act of faith. Well, I do not think it would have done us much good,

any more than the ostrich does itself good by putting its head in the sand and imagining that it is in a rabbit hole. The ostrich is, none the less, in a vulnerable position and the Board of Trade would have been even less able to fulfil my hon. Friend's desire to prosecute defaulters. What we hope to do is so to fix the quota, and so increase the number of films being made, that it will be possible to expect renters and exhibitors to fulfil their quota and, therefore, to prosecute those who will not.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend suggesting that if these quotas are fixed at the end of this year they will be able to be fulfilled?

Captain Waterhouse: I am afraid that our hope for next year is only a hope. For the two following years it is not only a hope but an expectation based on careful investigation, and not only on faith. Whether that hope will be fulfilled I cannot say. However, I hope that I have dealt with most of the points which have been put to me; if I have not I will certainly communicate with any hon. Member afterwards. I hope I may have satisfied the House that in asking for these quotas to be reduced we are not in any way adopting a defeatist attitude. We are not defeatists about British films. Very far from it. We intend to make British films go. I agree with what has been said, namely, that it was largely due to the last war that our present position has arisen. It was then that we were hamstrung, and the United States were able to get ahead and lay the foundations of their industry. We hope and believe that after this war, with our increased knowledge, with the great experience that we have of documentary films, we will once more be able to get the British film industry on its feet. Meanwhile, I ask the House to give its consent to the reduced quota for which we are asking.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Cinematograph Films (Labour Costs Amendment) Order, 1944, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 36 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, a copy of a draft of which Order was presented on 12th December, be made.

Resolved:
That the Cinematograph Films (Quota Amendment) Order, 1944, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 15 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, a copy of a draft of which Order was presented on 19th December, be made."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

Orders of the Day — GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Altrincham Gas Company, which Draft was presented on 1st December and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES)

2.42 p.m.

Major Mills: I beg to move,
That the Emergency Legislation Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure is neither long nor complicated. It has only 10 operative Clauses and one Schedule, which consists of three lines. At no period in its passage through the Church Assembly was it considered to be controversial and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported fully and favourably upon the Measure, which, therefore, needs but the briefest introductory speech from me.
The first Clause is probably the most important, and, indeed, is the only one that called for any comment when the Measure was before the Ecclesiastical Committee. It deals with the date at which the Clergy (National Emergency Precautions) Measure, 1939, and Regulations will expire. That Measure was due to expire on 28th July, 1944, and would have done so but for the proviso therein contained, that if the state of emergency was still continuing at that date the Measure should also be continued until the period of emergency terminated. That period is defined as the period during which a state of war may exist between His Majesty and any—I want to emphasise the word "any"—foreign Power, plus a period of three months thereafter. That period, with its margin of three months, is rather vague. The margin may be too little if the war with Germany only is taken into consideration, and, on the other hand, it may be deemed to be excessive if we include the war with Japan. Therefore, Clause 1 provides that the Measure and Regulations should expire at the end of six months from the date fixed by a Resolution of the Church Assembly

as the date on which the emergency, which was the occasion of the passing of the Measure, came to an end.
The discussion in the Ecclesiastical Committee centred on the fact that it might be inconvenient, perhaps even unconstitutional, that the Church Assembly should fix a date for the end of the war quite independently of Parliament. I am going to ask the House to agree that that is neither the intention of the Measure nor will it be the consequence if the Measure is passed at it stands. The resolution which it is contemplated that the Church Assembly will pass will not attempt to define the end of the war. It will only define the end of the period of emergency for which these powers are required, and for the purpose of the minor matters which are dealt with in this Measure itself. It will therefore be limited in its effect, because it will only be dealing with minor though very necessary matters of church administration, as to which the Church Assembly is well able to decide when it is ready to return to normal conditions. Some of those minor matters are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's Report and in addition to them the Measure will enable the Bishop of any diocese to give extended leave of absence from time to time to any incumbents or curates who are acting as chaplains to the Forces and are detained overseas.
The only other point to which attention should be called is Clause 9, the marginal note of which reads:
Basis of representation to House of Laity at next election.
That election would have taken place in 1940 but in the summer or autumn of 1939 it was considered most unlikely that it could be held in 1940, and therefore a Measure was passed to defer it till 1945. The number of representatives to be elected in 1945 would normally be proportionate to the numbers on the electoral rolls as revised for the annual parochial church meetings of 1944. It is obvious that those electoral rolls will be inaccurate, however much each diocese and parish has tried to keep them up-to-date, because of the movement of population owing to the war; therefore the Measure proposes that the most reliable basis would be that of the electoral rolls of 1939 and, if we take this, it will be fair to all dioceses. I need only remind the House that the Measure cannot be amended. It


can only be accepted or rejected in toto. I hope the House will feel that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee should be accepted and the Measure allowed to proceed.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: I beg to second the Motion.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I have no desire to oppose the passage of the Measure but being a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I raised a point which led to a certain amount of discussion and sympathy and I think it is worth recording in order that it may be borne in mind on any future occasion when a similar point arises. There seems to me to be a certain danger of a constitutional conflict because we are altering the definition of the end of the war which must be laid down by Parliament, that is, the period during which a state of war may exist between His Majesty and any foreign Power, and the situation is that the decision will be made by another body—the Church Assembly. It seems to me that a decision of that kind should be made by Parliament and by no other body. It is not necessary to labour the point. My object in raising it is that it may be on record that Parliament is watching carefully the proceedings that are taking place under this procedure so that the supremacy of Parliament in all matters civil and ecclesiastical may be maintained.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I desire to support the view put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is some years since he did me the great honour of nominating me for membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee. As the Church has ceased to be militant, I find myself becoming more and more bellicose with regard to Measures sent up by the Church Assembly. It is in no spirit of hostility, but only in the performance of what I believe to be my duty, that I draw attention to a most serious constitutional issue in this very short Bill. The National Assembly is arrogating to itself the right, if not of the Crown, at any rate of the House. Our predecessors, for a reason which I have never been able to appreciate, laid down that we must take or leave these Bills. On the last occasion on which a Bill came up before the National Assembly I described it as a

constitutional outrage, and this Bill goes further than the last. The point is that, whereas it is of course for the High Court of Parliament to determine when the war ends, the National Assembly have decided it. If hon. Members will look at Clause 1 and then glance at the Enabling Act of 1939 they will see what I mean:
Instead of expiring on the dates therein mentioned, shall expire at the expiration of six months from such date as the National Assembly of the Church of England may, by resolution, declare to be the date on which the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the said Measure came to an end.
I cannot find any definition in the Act of 1939 of "emergency." It was passed on 28th July, some six weeks before the war broke out. It lays down quite clearly what the period in the orginal Act was:
This Measure shall expire at the end of Jaye years from its passing, provided that if, at the end of such five years, the period of emergency shall be in existence, this Measure shall not then expire but shall continue until the period of emergency shall be determined.
Clause 1 says:
The expression 'period of emergency' means the period during which a state of war may exist between His Majesty and any foreign Power.
Is not that good enough for the National Assembly? The war will terminate by Orders in Council. This means that the National Assembly, if they so desire, can, for their own purposes, instead of coming back to Parliament under the 1939 Act, fix the date at which the emergency terminates. Some of us hope to be in charge of Private Bills this Session. I wonder if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) would dare to put into a Private Bill a Clause saying that a local authority can decide at what time a period of emergency terminates. This is an excellent Measure. I do not criticise a word or a comma in it with the single exception of this Clause, which ought never to have been inserted and which reproduces the worst features of private drafting, Every time one of these Measures comes up I shall protest with all the vigour that I have at the way in which power is taken away from this House. It reduces legislation to a farce when we are told, "Take it or leave it," and when you get an excellent Measure completely and absolutely ruined by a Clause which ought never to have been inserted.

2.58 p.m.

Commander Agnew: I ask the House to agree to the Measure. To those who have read the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee it must cause some surprise that a Debate has arisen, because the Report says specifically that the Measure does not appear to be controversial.

Mr. Goldie: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and I reserved our right to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

Commander Agnew: I was present when that was said but the two hon. Members did not feel so strongly about it that they felt it right to press the Committee to word its Report differently. Therefore I am not sure that it is not a certain pro forma attitude that they have adopted in their opposition to the Measure, though I do not doubt for a moment that they are absolutely sincere in the point that they have made. It all hinges on the meaning and proper interpretation to be placed on the word "emergency" in Clause 1.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) stated that nowhere could there be found, either in this Measure or in the principal Measure which this amends, any definition of the word "emergency." It is true, of course, that the word "emergency," when used in legislation, is generally understood to refer to the national emergency in which we are still engaged, that is to say, the duration of the war, but I think a closer perusal of the principal Measure, and especially of this Measure, would lead any reader to suppose that here the term "emergency" has only a strictly limited use and refers to what the Church itself—the body that will have to administer the Measure—may still consider to be a period of emergency for Church purposes only, and is not, in fact, directly related to the great national emergency.
If the Church were not armed with the necessary power—it is, indeed, enjoined by the Statute of the enabling Act itself—to say when the emergency within the Church itself is going to terminate then, I think, nothing short of chaos would ensue, and I venture to say that hardship would arise in many points of detail of Church administration. There-

fore, the word "emergency" is not taken to refer simply to the war. It must be taken to refer to the time which the administrators of the Church, in their wisdom, may think to be the duration of emergency for the purposes of the Church.

Mr. Magnay: This is a very serious matter, and I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he does not think that this sort of thing is for Parliament alone to decide, and not for any subordinate authority to take upon itself to say when an emergency occurs.

Commander Agnew: The Church of England is not a Department of State. It derives its authority quite above and outside that of the State. Even Government Departments require to have some say, by regulation or Order, in their own spheres as to when certain emergency regulations that they have drawn up can be safely repealed. It is true that they will come to Parliament in order to seek power to terminate those regulations. That is without question, but there is no such corresponding, flexible procedure that the Church Assembly itself can adopt in its own sphere. Therefore, this method of giving power to the Church Assembly, after submitting its proposals to Parliament in the form of this Measure, in order to decide when its own particular emergency comes to an end, is quite vital if the work of the Church is to go on, and hardships and anomalies are to be avoided. I submit that no improper action has been taken by the Assembly in passing the Measure and certainly it could not be questioned, I think, in any quarter of the House, that an improper action has been taken in submitting this Measure, seeking this power, to this House for recommendation to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I hope, therefore, that without unduly prolonging the Debate, the House will consent to have this Measure passed.

Sir Herbert Williams: Before we pass from this matter, which raises an issue of very considerable constitutional importance, it might be as well to look at the Clergy (National Emergency Precautions) Measure of 1939. The expression "emergency" means a period during which a state of war may exist between His Majesty and any foreign Power, and a period of three months thereafter.


When the Church Assembly passed that Measure, which was assented to by both Houses in 1939, they contemplated a period of war. The "end" of such emergency does not mean when fighting stops, but when appropriate measures are taken by Parliament to say that the war has come to an end. This Measure was to run for that period and three months afterwards. Under that Act, if any regulations were made—and my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken has the advantage of serving on the Ecclesiastical Committee——

Mr. Gollie: I do not think the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has looked at Clause 5.

Sir H. Williams: I will do so. I am looking at Clause 2 (6), which lays it down that if the powers of the Church make a regulation, that regulation shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, they took the power quite properly. If under their emergency Powers Act they wanted to do things by regulation, those regulations, as I have said, had to be submitted to Parliament which meant that we were empowered to pray against them if we did not like them. They have now abandoned that procedure and done something quite fresh, and that is what I take exception to. They say the Church of England may by resolution declare something—not by regulation—and that resolution does not come before us.

Commander Agnew: Will my hon. Friend allow me to point out that until the Church Assembly sees fit to pass that Resolution, it will still be bound to come down to Parliament in order to lay any regulations it desires to operate before it?

Sir H. Williams: My hon. and gallant Friend, who has the advantage of serving on the Ecclesiastical Committee and, possibly, on the National Assembly, has not found out what this Measure proposes to do. It is proposing to do something, not by regulation which gives Parliament the supreme authority—not only over the Church of England but over every chapel in the country—but by resolution. It is true that the Church of England has been given this special legislative power subject to the ultimate control of Parliament, but here they are proposing to do something by resolution which cannot be checked in any way by the supreme authority. When

His Majesty decides, on advice, to say that the national emergency has come to an end, it is the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 alone which is involved. It is an annual Act and is continued by resolution of both Houses. It says in Section 11 (2):
Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-section, if His Majesty by Order in Council declares that the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act has come to an end, this Act shall expire at the end of the day on which the Order is expressed to come into operation.
That has to come before Parliament and if, for any reason, both Houses disagree, the Emergency Powers Act would have to go on. But here we have the Church Assembly taking a power by simple resolution to do something which does not only affect the Church. The Act of 1939 does not merely affect those people who are communicating members of the Church of England, of which I happen to be one. The Church of England has rights and obligations to every citizen, whether he is a communicating member or not. For that reason the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, is something of interest to every citizen in the land, and for that reason I do not think that a measure of that kind should be determined by a simple resolution without a Regulation in support of it which has to come before both Houses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Emergency Legislation Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — GREECE (SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

3.11 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Before I enter on a discussion of the Greek situation, I would like to say that I think we are all fully aware of the serious turn of events on the Western front and that must be in the forefront of our minds all the time. I have never, so far as I know, on any occasion in this House since the declaration of war, spoken in any sense which I thought would interfere with its active prosecu-


tion towards the final victory, and one feels that now we are suffering—and we must admit it—a substantial and serious reverse. We shall go through critical days, and I can understand that these matters are giving grave anxiety to members of His Majesty's Government. But it is, of course, quite clear that now on the Western front, as indeed on other fronts, might is on our side. I submit, however, that this problem of Greece has its importance not from the military point of view so much as from the fact that when final power has exercised its force spiritual values will finally determine victory.
One must regard the situation in Greece as a test case. I am fully aware of all the difficulties that we have had in the past. I remember the heart-searchings there were in this House and outside in the country with regard to M. Darlan. I remember the heart-searchings there were about the Italian situation after liberation had begun. We are now in very considerable difficulties as regards the situation in Greece. I want to make full allowance for the Prime Minister's difficulties and the enormous strain, physical and intellectual, which rests upon him at this time. But I must say this, and I say it far more in sorrow than in anger—I am bound to say it, and I do so with a full sense of responsibility—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not handled this situation in the way in which it should have been handled. I am not taking any joy in saying this, but I feel it on my conscience to say it because I believe that my right hon. Friend's words have, in fact, done something to embitter the political situation over here.
When my right hon. Friend, the other morning, said that there was a division in the country on this issue, I felt myself, and I had better say it now, that there is no division in the country on this issue. Everybody deplores this situation. Everybody knows that it is a fantastic situation, a tragic situation, to have Greeks and Britons at each other's throats, and a terrible thing to have British soldiers having under orders to attack men with whom they have fought in the past. There is no difference of opinion. If there is a difference it is, and I regret to have to say it, due to the tone and the words used by my right hon. Friend a week last Friday. Again this week, if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been

a little more responsive and a little more generous in the words he used, I do not think there need have been any occasion for a special Debate this afternoon. I say that with the deepest regret. We have arrived at the situation where the Prime Minister comes down to the House and threatens us with a Vote of Censure. Really, on the eve of—I must not use the word "holiday" as I did this morning, but I would refer to it in this regard as a holiday—the Prime Minister should not come down as the schoolmaster prior to the Christmas holidays waving his birch in front of him instead of wishing all the boys a happy and merry Christmas.
This is no occasion for Votes of Censure. There is no challenge to the Government as a Government on this issue. There is great perturbation in the minds of millions of our people and of our Allies overseas with regard to the situation which has arisen in Greece. I have, during the past fortnight, given a good deal of time and thought to this problem. It was my duty a week ago to-day, at the annual conference of my party, to move a resolution on this issue, and it is on those lines that I would like to speak. I am not seeking to cast blame on anybody for past actions. I am anxious, as, indeed, everybody is, to find a way out of this difficulty which will redound to the honour of Britain and Greece and cement the bonds of friendship which have already been laid. I find very little controversial in the resolution which I moved. I had a little hand in the drafting of it, and naturally I would be inclined to agree with it, but I submit that the House can regard it as really representing what, in my view, is the opinion of the people of this country:
This conference deeply regrets the tragic situation which has arisen in Greece, and calls upon the British Government most urgently to take all necessary steps to facilitate an armistice without delay, and to secure the resumption of conversations between all sections of the people who have resisted the Fascist and Nazi invaders, with a view to the establishment of a provisional National Government which would proceed to a free and fair general election as soon as practicable in order that the will of the Greek people can be expressed.
These are the operative words of the resolution. They march on from a difficult situation to its possible solution, and, as I gather, it is really the intention of the Government to pursue, broadly speaking, that line. Yesterday afternoon I attended


a meeting of the National Council of Labour which, if I may say so in all humility and respect, is one of the most powerful bodies in this country, representing as it does the Labour Party, the Trades Union Congress and the Co-operative Movement, and there, unanimously, this resolution was endorsed. I speak on this issue, therefore, in the name of those three combined movements, which represent no inconsiderable proportion of the population of this country. I speak in advance of the General Election, and therefore I shall not offer figures of what "no inconsiderable proportion" means, but at least this was the considered opinion of the leaders of three great democratic movements.
If I understand the position, the Government intend more or less to proceed along these lines, but, as I gather from statements in the Press, and I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the matter this morning, there is one difference. A demand has been made for certain people to lay down their arms. I really do submit that British honour and British dignity are at stake in this business and that we ought not to stand on the ordinary kind of rules and regulations. I am glad to think that, following very shortly the Debate we had 10 days or so ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) made a speech which I said I was sorry the Prime Minister did not have the advantage of hearing, and when he and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), made a suggestion about some Minister going out, the suggestion made in this House was adopted.
I believe this problem is not a military but a political problem. It will not be solved by forcible means or by a demand that arms shall be laid down before anybody talks. This is a supreme test of statesmanship, on which the future of our liberated countries will largely depend. This is not an isolated problem. We have had some discussions about Belgium. I am not going into that question again, but other territories will, in time, be liberated, and we are likely to have the same kind of problem, because political views have developed with amazing rapidity under the pressure of war. Old conflicts have been intensified. That is clearly the case in Greece. If, on each

occasion when a nation is liberated or partially liberated, we are to be driven into the position of a sort of Gestapo, to keep underground forces whom it has been our glory to admire in the days when they were overrun and were resisting at very great peril to themselves—[An HON. MEMBER: "Poland."]—then Britain loses her good name in Europe.
I would say this: The name of this country has never stood higher in Europe than it does to-day. We have given them great succour. We stood by them, at first alone, in their direst hours of trial. They looked to us for a certain measure of moral leadership. Surely it is the duty of His Majesty's Government, as it would be the wish of the people of this country, that some forces and His Majesty's political representatives should, in each land that is freed, use their influence for the fulfilment of those high aims for which this war is being fought. Now I would hope that my right hon. Friend would not stickle for the laying down of arms by one section of the people. I am not quite as afraid of E.A.M. as is the Prime Minister. As was pointed out a week last Friday, the Prime Minister tends to divide people into sheep and goats. I have never known quite which are the worse, the sheep or the goats. My right hon. Friend did try to convey the impression in the House that we were helping to support a righteous cause and that everybody who was in E.A.M. was a gangster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thought it was most unfortunate language.
It is not as easy as that. I have no doubt that E.A.M. consists of people—I think I have mentioned it—quite as respectable as the right hon. Baronet who speaks for the Liberal Party. If that is so, I cannot imagine E.A.M. being such a dangerous and revolutionary force. It may well be that there are disorderly influences inside that movement, but our problem is to stop the fight. When that is stopped the position can be dealt with. The British Government are now embarked upon a course from which they cannot escape. I am not challenging their motives in going into Greece at all. They-went in for perfectly good motives, to feed the Greek people. They got involved in it, and now they cannot escape and they have to see it through. I think they have a great part to play in establishing an armistice. When the fight is stopped,


things can march along to the time to which my right hon. Friend looked forward, I am sure with complete sincerity, to the right of the Greek people freely and fairly to determine their own future.
The situation has become a little more complicated this week. I am not going to argue as between monarchy and republicanism, but a new situation has arisen this week because of the action taken by the King of the Hellenes. I think it is wrong for the British Government to use their influence until the Greek people can freely express their minds either one way or the other; but when the King of Greece takes action, as he does, I think it may be argued that it is the only Government they have got and the only King they have got. That might well be argued. I would say that the question of a regency is not new. I think I am right in saying that it was raised during the Lebanon discussions and it was certainly felt, not only by the Left Wing of Greece but by a very large proportion of the people in Greece, that this matter ought to be allowed to rest in abeyance without coming down on either side and that a regency was the best kind of caretaker for the existing situation.
The new demand for a regency does not arise, as I understand it, from His Majesty's Government, but spontaneously from the people in Greece at this time, who regard it as an essential element in some established, stabilised form of government. I submit that it is unfortunate that the King of Greece should have expressed great reluctance against the establishment of a regency which, so far as I understand, is generally agreed upon by the vast majority of the Greek people. I hope I have not spoken with bitterness on this issue. I do not feel any sense of bitterness about it, but I do feel a sense of very deep sorrow. I feel that it lies upon us to deal with this situation now, because unless we do, unless we are courageous enough to handle it firmly but in the interests of the liberated people, we shall set a bad precedent for the days that are to come.
I can foresee that, in the new year, with the victory of our arms, we may have this situation arising over and over again, We have now arrived at a stage in the war at which I am prepared to forget the Darlan episode, I am prepared to forget

Badoglio, but I could not forget Greece, not now. We have in a special way taken this responsibility upon ourselves, for purely humanitarian reasons in the first instance; we are involved in it, and I beg the Government, in the interests of the people of Greece, in the interests of their future, in the interests of our relations with the Greek people, in the interests of the honour of our people in the eyes of the world, to get rid of the shooting and get down to the making of the ballot rather than the use of the bullet.

3.32 p.m.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I rise for a few moments to intervene in this Debate. I do so with great diffidence, because my halting and ill-expressed phrases must indeed compare unfavourably with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I would only hope to convince the House that what I lack in eloquence I may perhaps be given credit for in sincerity. I saw the Greek nation rise as one man to repel the Italian invaders in the autumn of 1940, and I was privileged to serve with Greek troops in that campaign. No one who witnessed those events can have any doubt in their own mind as to the great qualities of the Greek nation, and it is to all of us a great tragedy that after these long years of bondage and incredible suffering, when at last liberation has come, Greek should be shooting Greek in the streets of Athens, and that British troops should be involved.
I feel that the best service which we in this House can render is to avoid being violently partisan on either side. It is frightfully easy to be pro-K.K.E. or pro-E.A.M. or pro-E.D.E.S., or any of the factions that make up political life in Greece. I believe we should be "pro-the-Greek-nation-as-a-whole," with their welfare as our only goal. As I understand it the policy of His Majesty's Government is threefold. In the first place it is immediately to do everything possible to stop the shooting; secondly, to distribute such relief material as we can spare for Greece as quickly as possible, thereby creating stable conditions; and thirdly, to create conditions just as soon as we can which will permit of free elections at which the Greek people will be entirely free to choose whatever Government they want. Those aims seem to me to be both humanitarian and democratic.
I want to try to analyse just a few facts. I am not altogether happy in my mind that the E.A.M. movement, or at least the extremist element in it, is quite so patriotic and quite so democratic as is sometimes suggested. It is, I am afraid, an escapable fact that although E.L.A.S. forces carried out acts of great valour at intervals against the Germans in Greece, some proportion of their military effort as a guerilla force was directed instead, with the use of the weapons which we gave them for guerilla warfare against the Germans, to seizing power by very ruthless methods at the expense of those who disagreed with them politically, over large areas of Greece. And it is, I am afraid, an inescapable fact that some of those methods employed were against peaceful Greek people who had no violent political leanings one way or the other. The actions of E.A.M. were certainly as cruel as, possibly even more cruel than, those of the Metaxas police. I suspect that the extremist element of E.A.M. have pushed the more moderate elements further than they wish to go, and that when the Greek Government, containing six or seven E.A.M, Ministers, returned to Greece, those Ministers failed to face the music when it came to putting into actual force the terms of the Caserta agreement regarding the disbanding of all guerilla forces, to which the E.A.M. members, together with every other Member of the Greek Cabinet, agreed. These extremist elements, with some Germans in their midst, are now, by the most undemocratic and most Fascist of all methods, attempting to seize power by the use of the tommy gun and the hand grenade. Would we be honouring our obligations to the Greeks if we were to give way to this threat?
I submit to the House that it is extremely dangerous to affix party labels that we understand in this country on to the political parties of other countries, that it causes a great deal of confusion, and that what are Left and Right, as normally understood in England, would not necessarily be Left and Right in Greece.
I also submit that we should be fair in our criticism. Some of the statements made in the Press and elsewhere have been somewhat less than fair to the Sacred Regiment and the Greek Mounted Brigade. I think I am correct in saying that the Greek Sacred Regiment was originally composed largely of officers who

volunteered to revert to the ranks and to go back into battle as parachutists in the Western Desert. I think it is also a fact that the Greek Mountain Brigade is almost the last regular formation of the old Greek Army, that Army which throughout the winter of 1940 and 1941 held between 250,000 and 350,000 Italians on the mountains of Northern Greece and Albania. It was right and proper that they should wish to go back to Athens and take part in what was hoped would be a march of liberation. I find it very difficult to believe that some strange metamorphosis has overtaken them, and that those troops who have played such a gallant part in Libya, the Western Desert and Italy, some of whom are even now prepared to go back to Italy and continue fighting, would really be supporting the present Government if it was as reactionary as it is labelled.
I would beg this House, as the oldest and most democratic of all Parliamentary institutions, to stand firm on one point: that no Greek Government is set in power by the threat of force. We have got, I think, to the stage where there is a psychological deadlock on both sides. The extremists in E.A.M. are unwilling to withdraw because they are afraid of reprisals if they do; the more moderates on the other hand are extremely frightened of giving way, because they fear an E.A.M. reign of terror. I would beg my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do everything he possibly can to convince both sides that when the shooting stops there must be no reprisals, on the one side or the other. I feel that in Greece it is a test case of the machinery of true democracy versus the threat of a Government by force. Democracy is a Greek word by origin: it is also the most important word in the English language; but neither in Greek nor in English does it mean that a Government which shoots its way into power is truly representative, when there is the alternative of free elections.

3.42 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) on the tone and temper that he has set for our discussion, and I hope that this Debate will follow in that spirit. I find myself very much in agreement with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for my hon. Friends above the


gangway. I have a vivid memory of the first week in September, just before we entered this war, when, as we shall never forget, the right hon. Gentleman exercised the opportunity to speak for the whole nation; and I felt all through his speech to-day that he was trying to live up to the very high standard he set on that occasion. I agree with him that this is not a military problem; it is a political problem, and, as he so wisely said, at a time when there is critical fighting on the other side of the Channel and the lives of thousands of our fellow-countrymen are at stake, we want to approach this burning issue—and it is a burning issue in the country—without too partisan an outlook. Believe me, the whole country is stirred by these incidents in Greece. It is not merely, as some people think, an agitation by the Left. All through the country, in the villages and in the towns, people who are not violently political have had their consciences stirred.
There are many reasons. First, there is the historic feeling about Greece, the home, as has been said, of experiments in self-government. We owe everything that we have to the political ideals and teachings of the philosophers of Greece. Therefore, it is natural for us to be moved when we see that country locked in a struggle apparently for its liberties. But there are other reasons. We were stirred in the early years of the war by this gallant little country being the first of the small countries to put up a fight. Almost alone they held up the Italian Empire, defeated the Italians in battle, and would have destroyed them if it had not been for the attack in the rear by the Germans. There is real resentment, too, among the common people that their sons, who are conscripted, are being used, as they think, not to fight the Germans but to shoot down our Allies. They want a lot of proof that this policy that the Government have been compelled by circumstances, perhaps, to pursue, is justifiable. Next, it is suspected by many people—and we have to face up to the fact—that this is a direct attack on democracy. I was in Greece in 1936 and 1937, just when Metaxas established himself in power. All the walls of the cities were covered by unattractive posters, in imitation of the technique of Mussolini. Hoardings were made hideous by Metaxas aping the style and method of the Italian dictator. I was informed

that all the leaders of every party were either exiled or in prison; in other words, the Constitution had been brought to a standstill. It was pointed out to me that the sinister part of it was that, only a year before, the King had been brought back, by a popular vote, to establish a monarchy on constitutional lines; and the feeling was that he had betrayed the Constitution. That very great feeling is understood in this country, and we have to face it.
I am sure there is a feeling, which may not be justified by the facts—a suspicion, at any rate—that the Government are playing the game of power politics, endeavouring to establish a sphere of influence. The Minister of Labour gave colour to that feeling in a speech which he made, by pointing out that the Mediterranean was of special interest to this country——[Interruption.] As I understood it, he meant that strategically the Mediterranean is of vital importance to our country. That is my interpretation. But many people feel that this is an attempt to establish a sphere of influence. This problem of law and order has constantly arisen since we started to bring relief to the occupied countries. It has happened in Italy. We faced it there, and with skill. It has happened in Belgium, it has happened in France, and, of course, it has happened in Poland.
We are always talking about the United Nations. It is true that in the early part of the war we were standing alone. Now we have great and powerful Allies. I think that if we are to have a satisfactory understanding before the armistice, and after the armistice, these United Nations must prove themselves united and co-operative. I am informed that Russia was quite willing to hand over the responsibility for Greece to ourselves. I think that is the wrong policy, and that we should not be compelled to have the odium or unpleasantness of shouldering alone the responsibility of bringing order and peace to Greece.

Mr. Petherick: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in that case, the United Nations should be responsible for other countries overrun by the Allied Armies, such as Poland and Rumania?

Sir P. Harris: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. I think the real danger at


the present time is that all the Allies are manoeuvring for position and sowing the seeds of future wars, not only in the Balkans, but in the Baltic also. We had a Committee for trying to work out machinery for a post-war organisation which met at Dumbarton Oaks. Of course, it is quite impracticable for it to start work under present conditions, but I plead that the right way to settle the immediate future of all the occupied countries when they are released is by establishing some machinery of the kind foreshadowed in the Dumbarton Oaks scheme.
There is a body called the European Council, representing ourselves, Russia, the United States and France. It was set up in order to share the responsibility for peaceful organisation in Europe as the nations are released. I want to know what has happened to the European Council. Is it fast asleep or is it functioning? Has it considered the problem of Greece, the problem of Poland, the problem of Belgium and the problem of any other country that is likely to be released in the near future? I say it is a mistake and an unwise policy to take the whole responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last pleaded the urgent necessity of bringing this civil war to an end. We are all conscious of the difficulties. I cannot see why our Allies should not be required to share the responsibility. We have a lot of critics on the other side of the Atlantic and they are very free in their criticism. They must be asked to share the responsibilities, and I do not see why we should not also have the advantage of the wisdom and experience of the French; but I do not pursue that. The longer this trouble is prolonged, the more bitter will be the feelings of the Greek people. There will be the danger of turning loyal friends into bitter enemies. I want to see a settlement. I agree with my right hon. Friend; I want to see an armistice. Do not let us be too particular about the terms. The Greeks, both E.A.M. and E.L.A.S.—we do not know which is which, though one is political and the other military—have proved, in the last two years, that they have been able to hold up the whole of the great German organisation with very little outside assistance. If we are prepared to challenge that force, they could hold up the civil

settlement of Greece for a long time, and that is the last thing we want.
The Greek Patriarch is ready, we understand, to act as Regent. We have, more or less, something of the kind in Italy. I cannot believe that the Greek King will allow himself to be used to hold up a settlement of that kind. The Foreign Secretary, with whose speech, on the last occasion when we debated this subject, I agreed so much, because it was a wise speech, said that a message should go out from this House——

Mr. A. Bevan: A reactionary speech.

Sir P. Harris: —a message of profound sympathy with the Greek people and of a desire for a peaceful settlement. I want a message again to go out, but I want that message to be accompanied by a constructive policy and proposals to show that this great and powerful nation is not prepared to stand on its dignity, but is prepared to discuss with the Greek people a settlement to bring peace to this most sorely tried nation.

3.56 p.m.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Some 10 days ago, on a miserable wet evening in Italy, I was sitting in a tent with a group of British and American officers. On turning on the radio to listen to the B.B.C. news we heard a report of a heated Debate in the House, in which complaint was made that the British Government and the British Army were denying freedom and liberty to the people of Greece. One of my friends turned to me and said, "I wonder what is happening to the people at home when they talk like that?" The view was freely expressed, "What a good thing it would be if some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could get out of this House to see some of the practical realities." [Interruption.] With that experience, many of their views would be radically changed.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if, at that discussion, ordinary privates and lance-corporals were present?

Wing-Commander Robinson: As I said, there were British and American officers present. On the other hand, those of us who have been in the field have taken care that we know what the ordinary soldier is thinking. In general, it is the


experience of all our Forces that nowhere do the British Forces in the field deny liberty, but rather that they are its champions wherever they go, against tyranny and against aggression. The immediate reaction of nearly everyone there was the feeling how dangerous it was that statements, perhaps ill-founded or unconsidered, about British Government policy should go out as facts to the whole of the world, for there is a real tendency, led on by many statements which have been made, to destroy some of the good will and mutual trust which have been built up among our Allies. Some statements about the British Government's policy, when repeated in America, may well tend to alienate our American friends, and sow discord and distrust among our Rusian Allies. Above all, in building this impression of apparent disunity, we are giving our enemies the opportunity of creating propaganda which would indicate that there is dissension in the Allied camp and cause the Germans to foster the hope that, if they hang on long enough, we may quarrel among ourselves.
The conversation that evening was the more interesting because some of us had been to Greece and had been privileged to arrive there in time to see the glorious scenes which took place round the time of the liberation of Athens. It was, indeed, a great inspiration. Freedom and liberty are things which can easily be talked about by politicians but one never realises how much liberty means until it it lost. Apart from their behaviour generally, the people of Athens had a look in their eyes and one saw perhaps for the first time how much liberty can mean to an oppressed people. The Greeks were a grand people.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to his presence in Italy and in Greece. Would he be good enough to tell us in what capacity he was in both places?

Wing-Commander Robinson: As a serving officer in the Royal Air Force. The city of Athens, when we went in, was decked out with Greek and with British flags. Across the streets people had strung large banners which said, "Welcome to our Liberators." I admired their guts because perhaps for the first time in his-

tory, a people had not waited until the Germans had gone out before they put up their flags and banners but had put them up for the Germans to see, so that they marched out underneath banners welcoming their liberators of Greece. There was no doubt, too, about the people's feelings for the British Army. Everywhere one saw signs, which said, "Salute to Glorious England." One of them delighted me particularly because it showed a keen sense of humour. It said, "Salute to Glorious England, the second country of Byron." We watched a small group of Tommies marching in through the streets. They were tired, dusty and weary, but wherever our ordinary soldiers went the people of Greece stopped in the streets and stopped in their work to clap them and to indicate the very warmth of the welcome they had for them. Some detachments from the Greek Navy marched in, and the people lined the streets to cheer and welcome them home. It was touching from time to time, when somebody broke out of the group and embraced a friend who had not been seen for years. They told us that in the harbour had come "an old Greek ship" and that was the cause of so much feeling. It was a ship they had got from the British some years ago, perhaps not in very good fighting trim, but always that ship remained free and carried with it the spirit of Greece. It was the spirit of Greece.
In my spare time I tried to find out what the Greek people were thinking. I did not talk to any Greek politicians; I did not meet any Greek political leaders. I was more concerned with the ordinary man in the street and with what he wanted and what he thought. It was perfectly easy. All we had to do was to walk down any street and stop for a minute and we were instantly surrounded by a group of people. There was always a fair number of them who could talk English. They freely came forward and told their stories of oppression under the Germans and the Bulgarians. They told us of the acute starvation that they had been through and they used that illustration to tell us that the Germans had done their best to use starvation as a weapon to set Greek against Greek. They blamed many of their acute political dissensions to that. The Germans had deliberately fostered this disunity among them. They hoped things would be a little better. Tribute was paid to


the work that had been done in helping to get rid of the starvation through the International Red Cross, but there was a great deal more that could be done. They told us of their sorrow and distress, but always, every man said the same thing, "We have kept alive. We have kept our faith during these last three years because we always knew that the British Tommy would come back." They paid a great tribute to the work we had done in the early days in Greece. They had lived for our return. We ourselves felt that. We knew why we were back. I asked about Greek politics. I knew that there had been dissension and almost civil war at times during the past year. I knew that guns we had supplied to the Greeks had been turned upon other Greeks. The general view of the man in the street was that, "Now you are back we hope and pray that we may get unity. We have got a Greek Government to which all political parties have promised their adherence and we feel that you will help to keep the situation as it should be."
From the military point of view the operation in Greece was not a major operation, but it will fulfil its part in harassing our enemy wherever he is. But behind all that there was the main task, to bring food and supplies to people who needed them probably more than anyone in Europe and to bring order out of chaos to men who had suffered. Those things are what the common man in Greece wants. It must be clear that this state of order and of supplies coming in cannot be if armed bands are roaming the country and are allowed to seek to impose their will to settle whatever differences they may have by force. When an individual is given a gun there is inevitably trouble.
How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, Makes ill deeds done!
It was obviously right that the Greek Government, which had the pledged support of all parties and the British military authorities, to whom all the partisans had promised obedience, should say to the Greek parties and to individuals, "Hand in your arms." It would seem that, while our Armies are the controlling factor in any country, we are the custodians of the liberty of the freedom of the people. When we go in we promise to the people freedom of choice of their own Government and of their rulers. We do not care whether the Government is to come from

the Right or from the Left, or whether they want a monarchy or a republic. It is for the ballot box to decide and, when we are in a position as custodians, are we to allow this freedom to be stolen from the people by armed bands? We have responsibilities and we must honour them. We do not wish to use force and we hate the thought that one Greek or one British soldier should be killed by our orders, but we must stay in Greece and we must do our best to ensure peace and order.
There can be only one reason for the use of force by E.A.M. or, indeed, by any party—and my remarks would apply equally to all—and that is that they use force because they have no faith that the people of Greece would back them through the ballot box. If the cause is good, then surely it can always be submitted, with safety, to the people. The Greek people have suffered much. Greek forces have fought gallantly. Let us see that the common man of Greece does not lose his newly-won freedom. Let us direct our policy to work for the end of the German-fostered dissension. Let us urge the Greek parties to surrender their arms and to settle their differences around the conference table and not by the arbitrament of force. Let us do this, and let us give such leadership that once again the gallant people of Greece may achieve unity, freedom and dignity.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: The speech to which we have just listened has been confirmed and given added weight in our minds since it was given by the personal witness of some of the events which have occurred in the last few weeks, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that there are other witnesses from Greece, many of them as gallant as himself, many of them as distinguished as himself, who wholly disagree with that speech. There is, however, one thing about which they do agree. All to whom I have spoken, and I have spoken to a good many in the last fortnight, are agreed upon one thing, that the British naval, army and air forces, though they hate being out of this country, would rather be in Greece than in any other foreign country in the world. So warm, so hospitable, and so overjoyed were the Greeks when we landed there, that all our people paid universal tribute to the hospitality and the warmth of their welcome. I was told


by an officer the other day that the diaries of all our men—not only officers but privates as well—were full of engagements with the Greeks all over the place, so pleased were they to see us.
But the scene has changed. It has changed fundamentally in the course of the last two or three weeks. Where we landed as liberators, we look like staying as tyrants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not say we were staying, I said we looked like staying as tyrants, in the eyes of many Greeks. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of it, but we are meeting this evening under the shadow of a threat which General Scobie has distributed by leaflet over Athens to-day. We have been pouring in, during the last fortnight, heavy reinforcements that ought to have been used against the Germans, but we are pouring them into Greece. General Scobie has declared by leaflet that unless E.A.M. guns cease firing by nine o'clock to-morrow morning, every weapon that we have at our disposal—and he itemises them: bombers, rockets, guns, tanks, mines—will be loosed upon Athens and environs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blow up the Parthenon?"] That is the latest message of General Scobie to the people of Athens. If those threats are carried out, then we in this House shall be put in a most shameful situation. When the Germans were fighting in Greece we issued an ultimatum: we said that if Athens was bombed, we would bomb Rome. The Germans did not bomb Athens, but we have bombed Athens. A statement has appeared in the British Press that the Acropolis did not take much damage from the recent bombing by British planes. Do not hon. Members on the other side of the House realise that for British bombers and British airmen to be used in bombing Athens—taking sides in a political quarrel in Greece—brings the whole of the British nation to humiliation and shame?
My hon. and gallant Friend referred just now to the statements made elsewhere about speeches in this House. It is not necessary to make speeches in this House at all. Has he read the American Press? Has he read the French Press? Has he read some parts of the Russian Press? It is not necessary for us to make speeches here in order to show our detestation of what we are doing in Greece. The Press of the whole free world——

Wing-Commander Robinson: I feel sure the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his question. I do read the French Press, and the American Press, whenever I can, but an illustration of my point is well made by the hon. Member's own statement. Obviously, neither he nor I have seen the leaflet dropped on Athens this morning, but he gives it as fact that we have said we will bomb Athens until the job is done.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, certainly.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I have not seen it, but I would be perfectly certain that it does not say we would destroy Athens but that certain groups of people would be attacked. There is a difference.

Mr. Bevan: I was saying what I have said with a great sense of responsibility. I have confirmed it this afternoon [Laughter.] I would like hon. Members on that side of the House to realise this, that it is for them to disprove what we say. Unfortunately for them, as was shown yesterday in the Prime Minister's speech, our statements are usually correct but unfortunately they do not catch up with the lies from the other side until a fortnight or three weeks afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] That happened yesterday over Belgium. The Prime Minister came down a little over a week ago and painted a picture about Brussels which was a complete distortion of the reality. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, and what was his reply? That my statement could not have been a more concise statement of the opposite of the truth. [An HON. MEMBER: "Loud Tory laughter."] Yes, loud Tory laughter from the little boys opposite. What are the facts? The facts are that the Prime Minister distorted the whole situation either willingly or unwillingly—or rather, knowingly or unknowingly. Now I say that the information we have from the most reputable sources is that General Scobie has issued an ultimatum, and that ultimatum is that the whole strength of the Allied Forces will be loosed upon Athens and the environs unless the enemy ceases to fire by nine o'clock to-morrow morning. Now, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he comes to reply, can confirm it or otherwise. That is my information, and my information comes from international sources. [An HON. MEMBER: "Reuters."] Yes, it is


Reuters; I think it is on the tape now, and it is "hard" news, as the journalists say—in other words, it has been confirmed by cross-checking. Are we prepared to go home for the Christmas Recess and allow this strife in Greece to be continued in such terms as that?
We are meeting not only under the shadow of the Grecian situation, we are also meeting under the shadow of a German offensive in France. The war with Germany is not yet over. This offensive is as much a political offensive as a military one. It is as much designed to split the Allies as it is to achieve an immediate military result. I ask my hon. Friends opposite, Do they think that they are contributing to the spiritual consolidation of the alliance in these circumstances by sending British Armed Forces to shoot down Greeks at the present time? Is it not obvious to them that the adventure into which they have been led in Greece is an adventure which they are following to the detriment of the whole of the Allied objective against Germany? They say, "We were there, and we are obliged to discharge our obligations."
What are our obligations? My hon. and gallant Friend, like a good many others before him, has been pretending that we are endeavouring to suppress an attempt by E.A.M. at dictatorship. There is not the slightest shadow of evidence of that. On the contrary, all the evidence is against it. E.A.M. would never have succeeded if they had been so bungling as they appear to be, if that were true. If they wanted to achieve the military coup d'état in Athens they could have done it long before we landed. But the Germans had practically cleared out. We have not done much fighting against the Germans in Greece during the past year because the German garrisons had gone, and if E.A.M. had wanted to achieve a military coup d' état they would have done it long before we landed. It is obvious that E.A.M. represents the vast majority of the Greek people. Why should a majority take part in a Government in which they had a minority of seats if they wanted to achieve a military coup d' état? According to all the evidence at our disposal, E.A.M. have been striving all the while to open negotiations with the British. All the evidence supports that. Is that the behaviour of a body attempting to achieve government

by military force? There is no evidence whatsoever that this was a military coup d' état, any more than was the evidence in Brussels when partisans, consisting of two lorry-loads of soldiers, were trying to achieve a military coup d'état there.
What are the facts? The Foreign Secretary made a very temperate speech recently. It would have been so much better if his had been the only speech from the Government side that day. In spite of his speech being temperate, I am bound to tell him that it did not accord with the actions of the Government. The Government pursued their objectives behind the obscurantism of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The whole history of the Greek affair goes far beyond the formation of Papandreou's Government. You cannot start the business there. If hon. Members opposite would do us the honour of wanting to understand what happened they might read the speeches we have been making on this side of the House during the last two years about the Greek situation.
Hon. Members opposite must ask themselves this question: Why is it that the Greek people do not accept the word of the British Government that their sole concern is the establishment of a democratic Government in Greece? Will they answer that? Why do not E.L.A.S. lay down their arms and accept the assurances of the Foreign Secretary? I will tell him. It is because the Greeks do not trust the British Government, because the British Government have been intriguing for more than two years to get King George of Greece back on to the Greek Throne.

Mr. Eden: Mr. Eden indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if there was time we could produce the proof of this. Will he answer this question: Will he give an assurance to this House that the British Government favour the establishment of a Regency in Athens at the present time? Further, will he give an assurance that King George of Greece is not to be allowed facilities to intrigue with the Greek Ministers from the Clarendon Hotel in London? Will King George be cut off from communication with Greece at the present time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, why not? Why should British soldiers lose their lives in Athens


in order to back up the intrigues of King George of Greece? Hon. Members on the other side of the House must face the realities, not run away from them. I believe that the right solution of this difficulty is for E.L.A.S. to lay down their arms, along with the Sacred Battalion and the Mountain Brigade. I believe that the British Government should become the real custodian of the restoration of Greek democracy. In order to convince the Greeks that we are sincere in that we have to take certain steps. The first step we have to take is to disarm both sides, and the second is to agree to the establishment of a Regency. If King George is as patriotically a Greek as the Foreign Minister pretends he is, he would save his country this agony by agreeing to the establishment of a Regency.
All we know is this, that with the support of the British Government King George is bringing pressure to bear upon his Ministers in Greece to reject a Regency. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this is untrue then we shall be very glad to hear it, because what we want to hear from him is that the British Government will use their prestige in Greece for the purpose of establishing a Regency. What we want from the British Government is a rejection of the immediate claims of King George of Greece to the restoration of the Greek Throne. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are in favour of holding a plebiscite when the war is over," but the Greeks do not trust us and the reason is because we favoured the Greek Government after the overthrow of a democracy in 1936. We were on good terms with the Metaxas dictatorship in Greece before the war broke out. Is it, therefore, reasonable to ask the Greek people to believe in our intentions at the present time? I suggest that the British Government, in addition to making themselves the custodian for the restoration of the Greek democracy, ought to ask the American Government to associate themselves in that guarantee to the Greek people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not Russia?"] Why not Russia, although I can see—and hon. Members opposite will be perfectly entitled to point it out—that in these circumstances that may produce additional complications. But if it is necessary to end hostilities in Greece, and reassure the Greek people in their fears, why should

not America and Great Britain jointly guarantee to the Greek people that when hostilities are over, after the armed bands on both sides have been disarmed, plebiscites will be held to allow the Greek people to decide their own form of government in their own way? Is not that a statesmanlike thing to do in present circumstances? It would be a far better thing to do than to allow ourselves to be dragged further into this squabble.
I ask hon. Members on the other side of the House—and I am going, to say something which is grave, although I am not saying it for the purpose of being an alarmist—to realise that large numbers of men in this country enlisted in the British Forces to fight the Nazis. I have some friends in the Middle East. If they are ordered to fire on the Greeks who may believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are fighting for their own forms of government, those friends of mine, and friends of Members on all sides of the House, will have a very painful choice to make, either to disobey orders or to carry on a war that they did not enlist to fight. Ought Englishmen to be put into that position at present? Furthermore, the hon. Member did not tell us how much the Greek people resent Ghurkas being used against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] I do not on general grounds object to the use of black troops. But the reason why they are resented is that the Greeks object as much to being dragooned by Ghurka troops as the Spaniards did to being dragooned by Moors, and as the English would too. The hon. Member knows that the reason why Ghurkas are used in Greece is that they are a politically backward people.

Mr. Eden: There is one point of fact on which I must correct the hon. Member. I think he would agree that it is a fact that an overwhelming proportion of the troops of the British Army in Greece at the moment are white troops?

Mr. Bevan: That is true at the moment, but it is true that at the beginning a very considerable proportion were Ghurkas. It is perfectly true that, as we pour more troops in, the greater proportion of our troops are white.

Mr. Molson: What was the point of the hon. Member's


offensive remark about the Ghurkas being used because they were politically backward?

Mr. Bevan: The point of the remark was that the Greek people resent their presence.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: It was said in the hearing of the House. Let us get it absolutely clear and on record. The hon. Member asserted that the reason why our gallant Indian troops were used was that they were politically backward. That is now proved wrong and the hon. Member refuses to withdraw it.

Mr. Bevan: What is proved right is that we used Ghurka troops in Greece. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not what you said."] It is exactly what I said. The right hon. Gentleman is so heated that he cannot even remember.

Mr. Hogg: It is in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member said the Government were inspired, in sending these troops, by a certain motive. That is proved false and he has not the decency to withdraw it, and says that he did not say it.

Mr. Bevan: I do not understand why I should give way in order to hear that. The Foreign Secretary has not denied the presence of Ghurkas. What he has said, perfectly properly, is that the overwhelming majority of Allied troops in Greece are white, and I said there was a larger proportion of Ghurka troops at the beginning. I said further—and this surely is obvious—that the use of Ghurkas is deeply resented by the Greek people.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is there any means whatever of being able to ascertain now what it is that the hon. Member said, which he now says he did not say?

Mr. Bevan: I really think the hon. Member is abusing my courtesy. He will see in HANSARD to-morrow which of us is correct.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: If the hon. Member does not correct it meanwhile.

Mr. Bevan: That is an offensive remark and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I did not hear the remark. But may I point out that whatever is said is in the hearing of the House and the House must be the judge?

Mr. Bevan: I dare the consequences of my own indiscretions, which is more than the hon. Member does. I wish to end what I have to say here. My right hon. Friend who opened the Debate spoke in very moderate terms and said that we do not desire to bring down or end the Coalition Government on this issue, but hon. Members opposite must not put too great a strain upon us, because, if they wish to do these things, they must carry the responsibility for doing them themselves. Our participation in these policies has gone as far as some of us will allow and, when we come back after the Christmas Recess, if the fighting has gone on, if we use our Forces any further for the subjugation of the Greek people, and if the right hon. Gentleman rejects the friendly advice offered by my right hon. Friend, then if the Labour Party itself does not put down a Vote of Censure on the Government, some of us will, so as to make it clear to the country that, if these policies are going to be continued against the people of Greece, they are the policies of the Tories alone and not the policies of Socialist Members.

4.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: I think the House may well be grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). When I first came in and listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) making his extremely moderate speech I rather felt that there seemed to be really little issue between the two sides of the House. When I further listened to the right hon. Baronet who leads the Liberal Party, I became even more convinced. He was following the traditional Liberal attitude in these days: first of all, agree with everyone; secondly, cover them with as much soft soap as possible; and, thirdly, if possible, run away from any British interest. That is a sad degeneration since the days when the Liberal Party had to be restrained by its coat tails from taking too forward a policy in the foreign affairs of the country. But the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has reintroduced that heat which many of us on this side may well welcome, because


it is an old cliché that thunder-storms clear the air.
I should like to examine some of the things the hon. Member has said. His picture of the situation in Greece was gloomy and his solution was so self-contradictory that I am surprised that a debater of his experience produced it. What did he say? He said, first, that we must disarm both sides. In other words, the Government must lay down its arms, E.A.M. must lay down its arms, and, the most outrageous suggestion of all, the regular Army must lay down its arms. To suggest that a regular Army that has fought from the opening of the war against Italy with success and glory on all fields should be asked to go through the formality of laying down its arms now, when they have got back in glory to their own country, is a suggestion outrageous to their honour and impracticable in fact.

Mr. A. Bevan: My hon. and gallant Friend may disagree with me, but that is certainly not self-contradictory.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: I am coming on to the contradictory bits in a moment. This is merely a slight diversion on maintaining the very proper honour of a military force. A force which refused to lay down its arms to the Italians and Germans should certainly not be asked to lay down its arms now to please E.A.M. I will come to the contradictory point. Having said that we must disarm everybody in Greece, the hon. Member implied that the only force available for maintaining law and order must be the British Army. A temporarily disarmed country without even an armed policeman will hardly be the people to maintain internal order, particularly in the state of chaos that exists in Greece to-day. In other words, the hon. Member suggests that having disarmed everybody we must assume full responsibility for the preservation of law and order, and then, with a terrific flourish of trumpets, he says that nobody trusts the British in Greece anyway. It does not make sense anywhere.
What is actually the real policy in Greece? There is a short-term policy which is practicable. That is to see that order, decent government and some form of livelihood are restored to that unfortunate people as soon as possible. During

the days when the Germans were in full occupation of Greece there were frequently in this House considerable voices raised, and raised justly, that we should lift the blockade and send food to Greece, even though it might help the Germans. Now that the Germans are gone and food to Greece can be sent in full, what is stopping it from reaching the population? The fact that E.A.M. will not allow the ships to be unloaded. I submit that a party which is prepared to starve its own people in order to enforce a political object is not a party which can be regarded with any great degree of confidence on any side. That is the practical point. We have to feed the population of Greece, and it looks as if at the moment we shall have to use force of arms to do it. Nobody would deny that it is a right and proper use of British arms. If we must carry food on the end of our bayonets to the starving Greeks, it is a very good use for bayonets, for it is getting food to the people who badly need it.
The long-term problem of Greece is a much more complicated one. Greece has, unfortunately, always been divided by factions. From the very earliest days there has been in all Greek cities a party within the city gates which was more ready to treat with the enemy than its own side. The first axiom of the most famous classical besieger of cities was not how to erect tortoises and catapults but how to sit down outside the gates and wait for your friends inside the city to open them to you. That unfortunate doctrine has persisted throughout Greek politics. Being the nation in which politics took birth, they probably regard them more seriously than even we do here, and they are prepared to impose their political ideals above the general welfare of their country. That is the long-term problem of Greece. It is all very well to say that Greece is suffering from the dictatorship of General Metaxas and because we supported the Government of General Metaxas. But it was the Greece of General Metaxas which fought the Italians and beat them. It was the Greece of General Metaxas which went on with the war and continued fighting by our side and which received the support of its own people. During the whole of the time the Germans were in full occupation one heard a lot about these heroic—and in some cases they were heroic—forces of E.L.A.S. which fought on our side. I


have not heard any Member yet mention that there were a lot of people who were not in E.L.A.S. who fought on our side, sometimes under continuous sniping from E.L.A.S. itself, and that the security battalions which we now have quite rightly disbanded because their needs, we hope, will soon be over, were largely formed for the purpose of protecting the villages from the depredations of the armed forces.

Mr. A. Bevan: That allegation is continually being made and was repeated by the Prime Minister last week. How are irregular forces going to maintain themselves when they are cut off from communication with the rest of the world except by foraging in their own areas, as irregular forces are doing in Yugoslavia?

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: I am perfectly ready to agree with the hon. Member's description of his friends' activities during the campaign in Greece, and one can hardly blame their own people for raising the security battalions to protect what small property they had left. I find it satisfactory that the hon. Member and I have reached such a measure of agreement on the activities of some of the guerilla forces, but I would point out to him that, although his friends, according to him, did this foraging there is, as far as I know, no assertion that villages had to be protected from other forces of Greek guerillas and their military exercises. These other forces are still in Greece and still, behaving reasonably an example which might well be followed by those people who are at the moment committing considerable depredations in Greece and are fighting against our troops.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Just to clear up a misunderstanding, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if in fact nearly all the E.L.A.S. troops are the sort of bandits he suggests, how he explains that there is a considerable war going on in Athens at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: I do not see how the question whether they are bandits or not prevents them fighting a civil war in Athens.

Mr. Bartlett: They must have the support of the vast mass of the people.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: An interruption of that sort is too juvenile for words. The

hon. Member should return to a more gullible public on the air.

Mr. Cocks: If what the hon. and gallant Member says is true, will he explain why we still have a British Military Mission at the E.L.A.S. military headquarters?

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: I imagine that it is for the best possible reasons and I take my hat off to those extremely brave men. I should like to offer one or two observations, going rather further back in this matter. One of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield—I made a note of it—was that we were faced in Greece not with a military problem but with a political one. That is not strictly true. It is British soldiers and not British politicians who are being shot at at the moment. It is a war in the Balkans and not a debate which is going on. We are responsible for pressing forward, as our contribution to the war in the Balkans, on the heels of the retreating Germans. We are responsible for rallying all the forces there are in Greece who are prepared to continue, and are capable of continuing, the war, and to carry on the pursuit of those Germans, in order that we may drive them into the net which is being formed by the Russian advance in the East and North. That is a military and not a political problem.
I want to urge that the first and paramount consideration which must be in the mind of the Government to-day is, What does the military situation demand? Whatever political aspect there may be to these problems must wait for some more reasonable time to be fought out. Nobody disagrees that ultimately Greece must have its own form of government, and nobody presumably disagrees that some form of government must now be established which must maintain our military communications in Greece. If the existing Greek Government can do it, well and good, with our assistance; if they cannot, it looks very much as though His Majesty's Government must be forced to say, "All right, we will do it ourselves." The immediate military needs require military government, unless the various parties in Greece are prepared to reach a proper accommodation.
The most important remark of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, which I again noted, was that we must find some solution which would redound to British


honour. That is a sentiment which can be warmly endorsed on all sides of the House. There may be some difference of opinion about what constitutes British honour, but I do not believe there can be a very wide doubt. The first solution which does not redound to British honour would be any symptom of weakness now. Long ago, a great Roman, beseiged by rebels, which E.A.M. are, was invited to come to a compromise in order that he might evacuate his forces. He replied: "The Romans never negotiate with enemies in arms." That I regard as a very reasonable motto for General Scobie's own troops.

Mr. Cocks: Also for E.L.A.S. troops. Why should the Greeks lay down their arms? The Earl of Chatham said, during the War of Independence, that if he was an American, as he was an Englishman, he would "never surrender—never, never." I would say the same if I were a Greek.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: What the hon. Member might do if he were a Greek—I wish he were—is entirely his own business. I feel that his orations on the steps of the Acropolis, even without a pebble in his mouth, would be as distinguished as those of Demosthenes. A negotiation with people who have taken up arms against us before they have laid down those arms would not redound to British honour, nor would redound——[Laughter]. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) laughs loudly. He is undoubtedly a special custodian of British honour.

Mr. Pritt: He is better than the hon. and gallant Member, anyway.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: The hon. and learned Member is a custodian of the honour of any country but his own.

Mr. Pritt: I accept that with gratitude from a gentleman who was for so long a most distinguished supporter of Hitler and Franco.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: The hon. and learned Member has fallen back on the first rule of his profession—the least creditable part of his profession—"When in doubt, abuse the other side's attorney."

Mr. Pritt: Mr. Pritt rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Debate had better proceed without any further of these exchanges.

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: The Government are at the moment pursuing the only course which they can pursue. They must insist upon the authority of the British Forces being respected. Whether or not the Greeks can reach a compromise themselves is for them to decide, if some means of bringing the various political parties together can be found. We did, at one time, succeed in bringing them together and got an agreement which was signed by all parties, but unfortunately the E.A.M. Ministers walked out after they had signed it. That makes matters difficult for the future. Our military security must in no sense be imperilled. Our pressure on the Germans must be continued by all means and our Imperial lines of communication must be maintained. We must do it with whatever forces we are able to spare. That is the only message which any British Government can send to all those of its officers who are entrusted with the job in the Aegean to-day.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him very much, because I have not sufficient respect for his political past to want to argue with him. I have had the good fortune in the last two or three months to visit four countries in Europe. I hope no hon. Member will be so unsporting as to remind the Home Secretary of that fact. In all those countries I found exactly the same symptom, which I think goes a long way to explain what is happening in Greece and elsewhere. It is for that reason that I propose to follow my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate, and to try to deal with wider issues than the Greek campaign itself.
In the three countries which have been liberated or partly liberated, Holland, Belgium and France, and in the fourth country, which is Spain, I found very much the same symptoms at work. I would develop the illustration in regard to Spain if I were not afraid of taking up too much of the time of the House. The factor which is at work is that all of us have under-estimated the extent to which the nationals of those countries who went into exile have got out of touch with the


resistance movements inside their countries. I spoke of Spain because, to some extent, the same sort of feeling exists there about the Republicans who went into exile. In this country we have had more to do with those exiled Governments and have made friends among them, so that our sympathies are apt to be with them when they go back to their own countries. I believe that the troubles inside Europe at the present time come very greatly from this fact that the people inside those countries do not care very much for the people who went outside, with the exception of General de Gaulle, I think he is the only exception.
What I want to do to-day is to suggest that these resistance movements deserve a great deal more sympathetic attention from the British Government and the British people than I think they are getting. They are rough. There is obviously a certain gangster element in them all. There always is, when law breaks down. There was even in this country, in this city, during the blitz, but we all know that during the blitz the people of this city were a very fine bunch of people. Even in this House we had a greater feeling of co-operation after Dunkirk and during the blitz than we have ever had at any time before or since. I suggest we are giving much too much attention to those lawless elements which are found in all the resistance movements, and far too little to the magnificent services they have rendered to their country.
I have recently been to France——

Mr. Pickthorn: We do not go to France.

Mr. Bartlett: The hon. Gentleman may manage to get there when the Home Secretary is looking the other way. If one goes to Rouen or Le Havre, Toulouse or Paris—those are the only places to which I have been—the préfets and the mayors and so on are nearly all people who for three or four years have been living in hinding. Many of them have suffered torture. They are people who deserve our greatest respect. These same people have the very greatest admiration for this country, because it was from this country that there came, at the worst possible moment, words of hope and courage to them. My belief is that we shall destroy the admiration of these people if we show so little understanding of the

good qualities behind their rough exteriors. The other day I voted against the Government, in many ways reluctantly, above all because I think that for the Prime Minister to refer to some of those Greeks as gangs of bandits from the mountains and so on is not only unfair to the Greek people, whom we were very glad to claim as our Allies a little time ago, but it is very bad for our prestige in all the countries with resistance movements. The reaction of the resistance movements in every country as far as one can check it has been in favour of E.L.A.S. and E.A.M.
There is no doubt that the Government are not sufficiently well informed about the developments of these movements. On 5th December the diplomatic correspondent of "The Times," who is a very responsible journalist indeed, wrote:
There is every confidence in London that the firm attitude General Scobie has taken will soon bring an improvement in the situation.
That was as far back as 5th December. The situation cannot be said to have improved very much. On the same day a British spokesman in Athens said that the Greek Government had very wide support, and that that Sunday demonstration was staged by a very small and noisy minority. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman just now because I cannot quite understand how it is, if in fact it is only a very small and noisy minority that is causing all the trouble, that we should have this very serious war going on inside Greece, and that when you have liberated Athens you may find yourselves compelled to fight large-scale guerilla warfare——

Lieut.-Colonel Wise: The hon. Member has only to cast his mind back to 1919 and see what the Sinn Fein movement did in Ireland, to see what minorities can do.

Mr. Bartlett: I think Sinn Fein did so much because of the attitude of the British Government of that day. I do not want the same thing to happen to-day.
I want to end with this. I have a feeling that the Foreign Secretary is riot as well informed by his representatives abroad as he should be, because they are not the sort of people who by training have much sympathy with these resistance movements, in the same way that certain people in Mayfair had little sympathy with the shelter marshals in London in


the blitz, although they were performing a very valuable job indeed. I think that the Diplomatic Service at the present time—I say this with reluctance as I have many friends in it—is terribly out of touch with all these developments inside Europe. If it were not so we should not have so misjudged the Greek situation, and these other situations previously. For example, when Thorez, the French Communist leader, came back from Moscow the other day to Paris—I do not happen to be a Communist; I dislike Communism more and more; I think it is a growing danger and I am very much afraid our policy may be pushing Europe more and more towards it—there was a meeting attended by some 30,000 people in the Velodrome d'Hiver. I wonder if any representative of the British Embassy was there to make a report.

Mr. Eden: Yes, I had a very full and most interesting report.

Mr. Bartlett: I am glad to hear that. I want to urge the Foreign Secretary to go ahead as soon as possible with the real reform of the Foreign Service. I know that he has not been able to do so hitherto during the war but he might begin to do so now. It does seem to me extremely important we should not so often find, if we go abroad, the man who can really give one a good picture of the country is not the professional diplomat, but the unofficial chap, the non-career chap, the Commercial Secretary, the Shipping Attaché, and so on. Those are the people who know what is happening inside the country. Therefore I maintain that there is something wrong with the Diplomatic Service.
I have suggested it before, and I suggest it again with great hesitation, because I think the present Foreign Secretary is the best Leader of the House we could possibly have with the present Government, that the time has really come when it is absolutely impossible even for a man who works so hard as he does, even for a man of such good stamina as he has got, to carry on these two jobs. The more I study the situation in Europe the more I feel we are not using to the extent that we should that immense prestige which was given to this country by the guts of the people of Britain in 1940.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to begin with a recognised truism, that is, that the Prime Minister owes his position in this House, in the country and throughout the world, to the support of the progressives in this country and generally in Europe. Right up to the last moment the great mass of the Tories on the other side gave a vote of confidence to the late Prime Minister, when the Progressives, against the mass of the Tories, were forcing the present Prime Minister on them. Why do I say that? Because the Prime Minister of this country is strong as long as he marches with the progressive forces. When he goes against the progressive forces, we have an exhibition such as we had yesterday morning.
Never did a weaker man stand at that Box than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is facing ruin and disaster when he places his fate, not in the Progressives, but in the gang behind him, including the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick (Lieut.-Colonel Wise). Such unspeakable hypocrisy as that of the hon. and gallant Member I have never listened to. How is it possible for a Member with his record to stand up in this House and say that a party that prevents food going into the country, thereby starving its own people, is not worth regarding? That is the gist of what he said. I am not misquoting him. He gave every conceivable support to Franco, who was sinking British ships that were carrying food to the starving people of Spain. Will he deny it? There is a word that is not allowed in this House, so I will not use it; but if it were permissible, I would add it to the term "confirmed hypocrite." I will leave it at that. He should never get up in this House and speak again after the speech he made to-day.
Of course, much noise was made about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) talking about the guerillas foraging. There never was a guerilla band anywhere which did not forage. De Wet had guerillas in South Africa. Where did De Wet and his guerillas forage? Off the villagers? Where did he get their ammunition and guns? Off the villagers? No, off the British Army. Where did the guerillas in Russia get their arms and their food? Off the Germans. Where did the guerillas in Yugoslavia get their arms and their food? From the villa-


gers? No, from the Germans. The Yugoslav guerillas were fighting for more than a year, with the British Government supporting the traitor Mihailovitch against them. Every gun they had was taken from the Germans, and their food was taken from the Germans. If the guerillas in Greece came into an area for food and ammunition and clothing, did they go to the starving villagers? No, they went to the Germans; and the Germans set up the security police to protect their stores. Does anybody deny that?

Captain Alan Graham: May I interrupt the hon. Member?

Mr. Gallacher: No. I want to come to what has occurred in Greece. First, let me say that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and I, and perhaps other Members, are receiving telegrams day by day from mass meetings of factory workers. On Thursday I had a deputation from the Clyde and Rosyth, representing masses of workers, demanding an end to this disastrous policy in Greece. Of course, when a deputation comes down about housing it is the Communists who have organised it; when a deputation comes down about Greece, it is the Communists who have organised it; if anything happens anywhere, it is the Communists who have organised it. At some times the Communists seem to be supermen; and at other times, according to some hon. Members, they are almost sub-human. Most of the people instinctively understand that the Government have taken a disastrous line.
On thing that the Foreign Secretary carefully avoided mentioning in his very careful speech last Friday, was the demonstration, and how that demonstration came about. The members of the Committee of National Liberation agreed to demobilisation and disarmament. Then the Mountain Brigade and the Sacred Battalion, handpicked in Cairo, were brought back. The Army that fought against the Italians, the Army that fought against the Germans, mutinied in Cairo; and the British Army had to suppress the mutiny. The Mountain Brigade and the Sacred Battalion were handpicked and organised to prepare the way for the coming back to Greece of the sacred person of His Majesty the Hohenzollern King George. When the Committee of National Liberation agreed to

the demobilisation, the Fascist forces, the Mountain Brigade and the Sacred Battalion, were brought from Italy to Athens, and the men who had done the fighting all through the years with the Germans were faced with the fact that they were to be disarmed, while the men who had come back were to be left in possession of their arms. However, there was still a possibility of agreement. On Friday night several members of the Committee went to see Papandreou about a demonstration in Athens, and Papandreou agreed. Everything was in order. There was to be a demonstration. Word was sent out around Athens. Then, late on Saturday night, as a result of somebody whispering in his ear—perhaps Members would like me to give the name—Papandreou banned the demonstration and went into hiding, so that the members of the Committee could not get in touch with him. I ask the Foreign Secretary if that is correct. I ask him if he dare deny it.
The demonstration took place. The Fascist police fired on it. British officers tried to stop them, but they kept on firing for an hour. The Prime Minister said that it was deplorable that women and children should be killed, but he added that it was also deplorable that women and children should be called out to demonstrate on the streets in a city which was crowded with armed men. When the Foreign Secretary went to Athens, there was a demonstration. Thousands of women and children on the streets of a city crowded with armed men. But in that case there was not the slightest danger of the progressive forces of the Left doing any firing. When the people came out for a peaceful demonstration about the demobilisation of all the forces, the trial of the traitors, and effective distribution of food, where was the danger? Not from the progressive forces; not from the Left, but from the Fascist police, who opened fire on women and children. We were told on the last occasion, by the Prime Minister, that German forces were left in E.L.A.S. Where did the Prime Minister get that statement? Did he think it out in Downing Street? Who sent him that word from Greece? Who was responsible for getting the military men removed from Greece? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us? If there is one grain of intelligence in the minds of hon. Members on the other side they will speak with disgust of such a phrase coming from the Prime Minister.


Why? Look at the Foreign Secretary. When he was parading through the streets of Athens, when the streets were packed with cheering men, women and children, there was a heaven-sent opportunity for the Germans who were left behind—if they had been left behind—to create the utmost disunity, dismay and terror. I say to this House—and I challenge the Foreign Secretary—that lies, distortions and slanders have been sent across from Greece. What is wanted is a declaration from the Foreign Secretary: "Cease fire." Then demobilise all the forces, and let the police, the national guard and the army be made up of groups called up according to their ages; let there be immediate trial of the traitors, and an opportunity for a national Government that will represent, in every sense, the masses of the people in Greece.

Mr. Edgar Granville: On a point of Order. May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he has had a word with the Leader of the House and has considered whether we could go on after six o'clock, in view of the fact that the Government took up a good deal of time with two Bills earlier to-day?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is not a point of Order.

5.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I do not think it would be reasonable, at this stage of the discussion. There has been no representation and no Government spokesman has intervened until now.
I do not wish to abandon the wisely uncontroversial line adopted by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) in a truly remarkable speech, but I must deal with one charge which an hon. Gentleman has just made against me for not giving an account of the circumstances which took place in Athens just previous to these unhappy events. If the hon. Member will read my speech again, I think he will find that I did deal with the very points which he has just asserted I omitted. He said that the whole issue has been raised by the Sacred Battalion and Mountain Brigade, whom he has described as Fascist.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman dealt with that.

Mr. Eden: I am going to deal with it again. I do not know what the hon. Member means by a Fascist brigade. The Mountain Brigade fought with very great gallantry in the desert, and I prefer to regard them as our Allies. The point is, as I explained last time, the Sacred Battalion has never been in Attica and is at present engaged with some German remnants in the Greek islands. The matter of the Mountain Brigade was never raised in the Debate until a late stage of the discussion. They arrived back in Athens and were cheered by the Greek people and had a tremendous reception from everybody. This question was raised at a very late hour in the Debate, and, as I explained, an offer was made by the Greek Cabinet that the Mountain Brigade should remain and that also a force of E.A.M. of equivalent strength, and one of E.D.E.S. of proportionate strength, should remain, so it is quite wrong to say that this Brigade has for long been a source of trouble.
The hon. Gentleman also gave an account of the events of Saturday night. He said there was going to be a demonstration which had been agreed by the Papandreou Government, and that, late at night, somebody whispered something in his ear. The impression the hon. Member gave was that some British Minister whispered in his ear. I assure him that that is absolutely untrue. I think we could more properly be censured for not having interfered, so far as law and order were concerned, at an earlier stage. The facts are that we had been advised that a general strike was declared at that time, and, as a result of the declaration of the general strike, the Greek Cabinet felt that the demonstration ought not to take place, though they had previously allowed it. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. What I am denying is that a British Minister whispered in anybody's ear on that point.
Now I come to the points raised in the Debate, and I shall do my best, in this very unhappy business, as we all feel it to be, not to make matters worse, because I am very conscious that anything I say, if I am not careful in the choice of my words, may make matters worse rather than better. My object is to make them better, and if I speak with more


caution than usual, I hope the House will make allowances, because this is a situation which all of us, whatever our feelings, want to see resolved.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was a little unfair, if I may say so, in his otherwise careful speech, in what he said about the Prime Minister. He did not quite correctly quote the Prime Minister about E.L.A.S. I have looked up his words. The Prime Minister said:
Meanwhile the forces of E.L.A.S. which is the military instrument of E.A.M. were planning a descent on Athens as a military and political operation and the seizure of power by armed force. E.L.A.S. is a mixed body and it would be unfair to stigmatise them all as being entirely self-seeking in their aims and actions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th Dec., 1944; Vol. 406, c. 942.]
The right hon. Gentleman said they were a mixed body. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, that is the quotation.

Mr. G. Strauss: My right hon. Friend does not give a fair picture. The Prime Minister talked about
… a fairly well organised plot or plan by which E.L.A.S. should march down upon Athens and seize it by armed force and establish a reign of terror. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th Dec., 1944; Vol. 406, c. 943.]

Mr. Eden: What I am dealing with is the hon. Gentleman's statement that everything about E.L.A.S. was utterly bad. That is what he said, so I produced this quotation showing that the Prime Minister said it was a mixed body. I do not want to emphasise that, but to pass on to a remark of the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who asked why there was not more collaboration between the Allies over this business. The right hon. Gentleman asked what, above all, was the European Advisory Commission doing. The European Advisory Commission was set up on our initiative to agree plans for surrender terms to Germany and for post-occupation plans for Germany. That is the task upon which it has been engaged.

Sir P. Harris: Not on the immediate situation?

Mr. Eden: No, on these plans. As regards the general machinery of international collaboration, I spoke on this matter only a fortnight ago, and there is nothing that we should welcome more than machinery for closer collaboration

than there is now. We would welcome quarterly meetings of the Foreign Secretaries of the great Powers, as we used to have before to deal with some of these matters. I have said over and over again that we will go anywhere and take any steps to further such a result. I really do not think, whatever hon. Members' feelings may be, that the charge can lie against us that we have not tried to promote this machinery and get it going more satisfactorily.
So far as the decision to go to Greece is concerned, I am bound to say, after listening to this Debate, that I cannot see what other decision we could have taken in the circumstances. I admit there were risks. We knew there were risks; but I still think the decision was right. Before we took that decision, as my right hon. Friend said a fortnight ago, we did consult the United States. We went there with their agreement, and we conveyed our decision to go to Greece to our Soviet Allies and they also approved that decision. There is no question, therefore, of our having done this without consulting our Allies. The only criticism which the hon. Gentleman may make is that we might have brought others with us, but the Government did not foresee that matters would turn out as they have done, and in a fashion which we all so deeply deplore.
It is also true to say that, for reasons of operational security, we did not, before we went to Greece, describe in detail our plans and intentions to our Greek Allies. The result was that we could not give them a clear answer to the many appeals which they were making—this then being a government of all the parties—to us to go into Greece, appeals made because they saw the situation developing and wanted us to drive the remnants of the Germans out. We were unable to explain and we did not want to reveal the details of our military plans. As we got nearer the day for our actual entry we did tell them of our plans to some extent and did also invite their co-operation in respect of these military bands in Greece. The two representatives—General Zervas and General Sarafis, the E.L.A.S. Commander-in-Chief—were invited to come to Caserta and meet the Supreme Commander, and there was drawn up and agreed formally between them, what is known as the Caserta Agreement.
I do not want to weary the House but I must draw attention to one or two items in the Agreement which shows that immense trouble was taken to try and get an agreed decision, and an agreement between all parties in the Greek Government and the Greek military leaders before we went into Greece at all. This was agreed to by M. Papandreou, the Prime Minister and leader of the Government which was composed of all the parties. It was signed in the presence of all the leaders by the commander of the E.L.A.S. forces and of E.A.M. This was the conference presided over by the supreme Commander in the Mediterranean theatre, at which the Greek President of the Council, with other members of the Greek Government—I ask the House to remember that at that moment all the parties were in the Greek Government—and the Greek military leaders, General Zervas and General Sarafis, were present. The following decisions were agreed as having been accepted unanimously:
All guerilla forces operating in Greece place themselves under orders to the Greek Government of National unity. The Greek Government places these forces under the orders of General Scobie, who has been nominated by the Supreme Allied Commander as General-Officer-Commanding forces in Greece.
That is what was agreed, and then next——

Mr. Gallacher: This is very important. It is clear from that first point, that there was no Greek Army to which the guerillas could be allocated and they were, therefore, allocated to the British Army. It was the bringing in of these other brigades from outside.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that the whole thing turned on bringing the Mountain Brigade into Greece. That matter was only raised some time after the Greek Government arrived, and when it was raised—this was before the breakdown of everything—they offered E.L.A.S. another brigade if they desired to counter it. I do not think it is true to say that this one brigade has been the cause of all the trouble, but, if so, it might well have been raised at an earlier stage when E.L.A.S. was in the Government. They were in the Government and as far as we know they never said one word against General Zervas. If the hon. Member has

other evidence that they protested against their arrival in Athens, I shall be glad to hear about it, as I have not seen it. The agreement goes on:
In accordance with the proclamation issued by the Greek Government, the Greek guerilla leaders declare that they will forbid any attempt by any units under their command to take the law into their own hands. Such action to be treated as a crime and will be punished accordingly.
As regards Athens, no action is to be taken save under the direct orders of General Scobie, General-Officer-Commanding forces in Greece.
Security battalions are considered as instruments of the enemy. Unless they surrender according to orders issued by General-Officer-Commanding they will be treated as enemy formations.
That has been done.
All Greek guerilla forces in order to put an end to past rivalries, declare that they will form a national union in order to co-ordinate their activities in the best interests of the common struggle.
In accordance with the powers conferred on him by the Supreme Allied Commander after agreement with the Greek Government, General Scobie has issued attached operational orders.
Then followed the orders for the division of stores between the various forces. I am sorry to weary the House by reading all that text, but I do it deliberately because it shows that a great deal of trouble was taken before we went into Greece, first, to get a government of all parties, and secondly, over and above that, to gain complete agreement between the guerrilla leaders and the Government. I suggest that the document I have read out does show that we could not have done more to try and deal with the events which have so unhappily come upon us.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What date was that?

Mr. Eden: The date of this document was, I think, 25th September.

Dr. Haden Guest: Did that agreement lay down that the Athens police were to be removed? Were they not to be disarmed?

Mr. Eden: There is nothing whatever about the Athens police in the Agreement that I have read out. If that was the trouble, there were six or seven E.A.M. Ministers in the Government for many weeks and surely they would have said that this was an issue, and as far as I know they never said it.

Dr. Haden Guest: Was it in the Agreement at all?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, there was nothing in the Agreement about the police at all, nor do I know of any reason why there should have been anything on that subject in the Agreement. I also remind the House that it was about that time, as I stated the other day—actually 10 days before the Agreement was signed—that Mr. Sophoulis, leader of the E.A.M. representatives in the Government, saw M. Papandreou on behalf of all his E.A.M. colleagues in the Government and expressed his confidence in the Government and his desire to continue in office under M. Papandreou as Prime Minister, if they could get to Greece, until an election could be held. All I am trying to say to the House is that on this date, before the actual entry into Greece, there was no issue which divided the Greek Ministers amongst themselves and no issue which divided us from any part of our Greek friends. That was a step forward.
So I come to the next step. What was our purpose in going to Greece? Here I answer a speech made earlier in the Debate. We seek nothing for ourselves in Greece at all. We seek neither strategic advantages nor economic advantages nor any other advantages of that kind at all. There is nothing in the least inconsistent in what my right hon. Friend has said and what I am saying now. In this action we are taking we have no ulterior motive whatever. We really have not. I do not see why hon. Members are so eager to think we have some sinister purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry to have to interrupt. My right hon. Friend may have taken note of the fact that the Minister of Labour, at the Labour Party Conference, did refer to the Mediterranean position.

Mr. Eden: Of course, it is true we have an interest in the Mediterranean. That has never been denied by anyone, but I say that we took this action above all, and only, to try to bring food and supplies to Greece, because we knew of the condition in which we should find Greece. We had no ulterior motive. I should like to try to show a little of what we have been doing. Let me say this. If Greece had been largely a self-supporting country, if she had been in a condition where she

could have provided her own people with food, it is quite likely we should not have done it. We might have said, "We will help chase the Germans out," but certainly we should not have gone in with this vast organisation to try to supply food for the people of Greece. But we knew that in normal conditions Greece was quite unable to feed herself. We knew that the harbours and all means of transport had been utterly destroyed and that unless we could get food and supplies in there was no chance of the Greek people escaping starvation and of allowing Greek industry to be restarted.
Those are the reasons why we went into Greece and I do not think they are reasons of which anyone could complain. Suppose we had not done that. We did weigh the alternatives. We knew there were some risks because of disturbed conditions, and the story of the Metaxas regime, and all that went before it; but if we had not gone in, what would have happened? Suppose there had been civil strife—Greeks against Greeks—as a result of which no food could have been got in. Without our help in clearing the ports and our lorries to carry the food, there would have been no food for them, there would have been for certain mass starvation all over Greece, and I am sure, and rightly, hon. Members would have come to the British Government and asked, "What are you doing about this? Are not these people your Allies? Why have you not made an effort to go and help them?" And we should, I think, have been blamed for that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Could not U.N.R.R.A. have done it?"] U.N.R.R.A. was coming in to help us in the matter and, unfortunately, U.N.R.R.A. has had to pull out, as the hon. Gentleman will see.
I want to give the House some little account, very shortly, of the amount of supplies we have put in and the work we have done, because this has been largely our own effort—stock piles, for instance, built up in the Middle East in conditions of some difficulty to meet this food situation which we knew existed. I shall only give the figures for one week, 18th to 24th November. I have not specially chosen it as being particularly good or otherwise. We unloaded in that week in the Piraeus alone over 20,000 tons of food, in Kalamata over 4,000, in Patras over 4,000, in Mytilene over 7,000, in Chios over 2,700, and so on. In the


same time we delivered—I would ask for the attention of the House for these figures because I think they are important—in all regions clothing and footwear 14,000 pieces to Euboea, to Lamia 24,000 pieces, to Tripolis 25,000 pieces, to Patras 30,000, to Volos 24,300, and so on down the list. We did so because one of the greatest problems for Greece this winter was the lack of clothing and the cold of the Greek winter and the lack of boots—problems all of which we had more or less worked out before. The hon. Gentleman asked "Why not leave it to U.N.R.R.A.?" But we have prepared this and I only give these details to show the House that our purpose had been planned, and carefully prepared at some considerable effort to ourselves, and that the chief of U.N.R.R.A. agriculture arrived at that time and consultations were initiated with him. I could go on, though I do not want to weary the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It is quite important. We have tried to help these people.
Now, I come to an important matter which has been raised in this Debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield—terms for an armistice. What is the position? It is, as I have already explained in reading the Caserta Agreement, that E.L.A.S. Forces undertook to obey General Scobie's orders by that Agreement. He has asked that E.L.A.S. supporters in Athens and the Piraeus must cease resistance, and hand in their arms—E.L.A.S. supporters in Athens, and the Piraeus must hand in their arms. I emphasise those words, because it is limited to that area; he has not asked that E.L.A.S. supporters outside who have withdrawn from Athens should hand in their arms. Why is that provision there? I fear that it must be there. It is the minimum which must be asked, because, if arms are left in the hands of numbers of people in civilian clothes—as, of course, many of them are—in Athens for a long period, even when this immediate emergency is over, the moment political tension rises again you will get the risk of this same thing happening again and people using these weapons again. I think the terms are the minimum because, it is only, I repeat, in that area. We have not said that everybody bearing arms must get out of Athens and the Piraeus because we realise very well that some of

those who are using those arms are the local population and have nowhere else to move. Where they can withdraw with their arms we have said withdraw; where they cannot, in Athens and the Piraeus, we have asked them to hand in their arms.

Mr. Bevan: What does the declaration mean? I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has occupied over 20 minutes on what was not said in this Debate at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is meant by the ultimatum that the civilian population should withdraw within 500 metres or wherever hostilities might be taking place to-morrow? How can they tell what is 500 metres?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Reuter message, I am coming to that in a moment. We have not asked that the disarmament of the guerrilla bands outside the Athens area should be done otherwise than by agreement subsequent to the cessation of hostilities, and there is no question of leaving security battalions in the possession of their arms, nor any Right-Wing organisation in Athens either. I ought to tell the House—in fairness they should know this—that General Scobie, some little time ago, refused assistance offered to him by Right-Wing organisations against E.L.A.S. There was one of these organisations known as Organisation X—I think I have General Scobie's telegram here, at any rate I remember its purport, in which he said that these men had offered to join with our Forces against E.L.A.S. and he had refused and had disarmed them.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask if any of the Right-Wing elements in Athens, on General Scobie's declaration, handed over their arms?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, actually Organisation X, which tried to joint with our Forces against E.A.M., was disarmed by our own Forces.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that if General Scobie's order is complied with it means that Right-Wing Forces will have laid down their arms?

Mr. Eden: All we desire is that all should lay down their arms. We are not trying to impose a Right-Wing Government or a Left-Wing Government. It is not our purpose to do so. What we wish, if we can get it, is that the ship shall be


on an even keel. That is what we wish and we are against—I repeat what I said at Question Time—reprisals by one side or the other after this event is over, and we shall do everything we can to stop that. One hon. Gentleman said he thought the fear of reprisals was an element in continuing this fight. I think he may be right, and I would like to assure him that the position of His Majesty's Government is that we shall do all we can to stop reprisals after this event has taken place.

Dr. Haden Guest: Will the police of Athens who started the shooting be disarmed?

Mr. Eden: I cannot answer a question like that straight away. What I say is that we shall do all we can to preserve order, and we ask that everyone concerned shall lay down their arms. I really think that is a reasonably broad proposition. I will just read General Scobie's message, because I have it here, dated 8th December:
Armed members of the Right-Wing X organisation who attempted to join forces with British troops are being disarmed by the latter as they are acting contrary to the orders issued by the prevailing Government and General Scobie regarding the carriage of arms by irregular forces.
That was the telegram on 8th December showing the action taken.
Then the hon. Gentleman referred to Reuters message which he said he had just read on the tape, and I must say I was a little disturbed by the account, as he gave it, of what was happening.

Mr. Bevan: I said I understood it was also on the tape.

Mr. Eden: I see. Well, anyhow, the hon. Gentleman gave an impression of something he had gathered from somewhere. It was to the effect that suddenly to-morrow a very heavy bombardment—and I got the impression an indiscriminate bombardment—is going to be opened on Athens. I have the message and I had better read it to the House:
Aircraft to-day dropped leaflets containing a warning from General Scobie, General Officer Commanding Greece, to civilians in and around Athens and in the Piraeus, that rebel guns still firing after 9 a.m. to-morrow will be attacked with all the arms at my disposal.

Mr. Bevan: How does the right hon. Gentleman suppose he is going to do it? In any case the message has been

abbreviated. He proposed to use these on Athens and around.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Eden: I am not seeking to make a debating point. All I wish to say is that I do not think, if the hon. Gentleman will read his own account in HANSARD to-morrow, he will find that it squares with General Scobie's statement. The hon. Member need not be so angry. These guns have for some time been firing at the centre of Athens; General Scobie has said he would attack them, and warned the civil population to get out of the way before he does so. I do not think that that is at all the picture which the hon. Gentleman gave. I must say, in justice to our commanders, that I am absolutely convinced that they have used every possible means they can to avoid unnecessary loss of life, and have probably done so at considerable cost to themselves in the conduct of very difficult and delicate operations.

Mr. Stokes: Is that the whole message?

Mr. Eden: That is all the message I have, but if there are any more I should be glad to have them. Now I come to answer the hon. Gentleman on the subject of the King. He said that we were trying to impose the King on the Greek people. That really is not so. I must tell the House one factor which may perhaps carry weight, even with the hon. Gentleman. We all know perfectly well that the King is in this country. It was on the advice of the Prime Minister and myself, given personally, that the King is still in this country. It is very likely that he would have taken that decision on his own account—I cannot say—but our advice was strongly that he should remain in this country, because we were perfectly conscious that his arrival in Greece might certainly be the cause of a political controversy which we wanted to avoid. That is not imposing the King, with British bayonets, on the Greek people. I want to go a little further, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening.

Mr. Bevan: I am listening.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman said that the British Government were throw-the weight of British Ministers against a Regency. The answer is that we are not;


we are not against a Regency, and we are not throwing our weight against a Refency.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell rose——

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my speech. I did not intend to reveal this, but I think that in fairness I should. Many harsh things have been said about our Ambassador in Athens. Some Members suggested that the question of the establishment of a Regency had been a spontaneous suggestion from Greek Ministers, or something of that kind. But in point of fact the first suggestion for a Regency was made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Athens. He put it forward, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) reached there, he confirmed the judgment of the Ambassador. What is the position of the King? As I understand it it is this. He feels that before he can make a decision on a matter of this kind he must get recommendations from the leaders of the parties in Greece. [Laughter.] The hon. Member laughs, but does he want this to be constitutional or not? The King says, "Before I can decide I would like to know the views of the political parties in Greece."

Mr. Shinwell: This is a matter of major importance. If the King declares that he is willing to consider the possibility of setting up of a Regency after consulting leaders in Greece the opinion of the E.A.M. must be taken into account. How could they be excluded?

Mr. Eden: E.A.M. walked out of the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.

Mr. Eden: As I understand the position, the King will be guided by the advice of his Ministers. If this is the desire in Athens then the expression of the desire can come back to the King.

Mr. James Griffiths: I gather that the British Government advised the King of Greece to stay in this country. That being so, will the Government advise the King of Greece not to stand in the way of a Regency?

Mr. Eden: We are not at all opposed to a Regency; on the contrary, it may be the best solution, but I think the Ministers themselves and the leaders of the political parties in Greece have the right to express

their own opinion, and to express it to the King. I understand the King will then take a decision on their advice.

Mr. Shinwell: Will we give any advice?

Mr. Eden: I have said that the initiative came from our Ambassador.

Mr. Bevan: Do we favour a Regency now?

Mr. Eden: I have said that we have not the least objection to a Regency if that is going to provide a solution, but we would like to feel that it is going to provide a solution. But on that we must get advice from the Greeks themselves.

Mr. Driherg: If the Government can give advice to the King of Greece about remaining in this country, cannot they also advise him against sending messages to Athens in a form which can hardly be likely to promote reconciliation?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that that is a reasonable request. I have put the position. We are not against a Regency; if that might provide a solution, we would like the Greeks themselves to say that they think it is a solution. I am not in favour of it if it does not commend itself to the Greeks themselves.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it worth while spending the life of, or wounding, one British soldier to defend the King's prerogative?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is most unfair. In this matter the King has behaved with complete constitutional propriety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members might let me finish. He has not gone to Greece, at our request. He awaits the advice of his Ministers, and so far as I am aware if they give that advice he will take it. I have tried to avoid importing controversy into this Debate, and I am sorry if I have done so at any stage.
Let me try to sum up. We want to bring the present conflict to an end as speedily as possible, by whatever means can be devised. Apart from the tragedy of the loss of life, we must bring it to an end, otherwise we cannot get supplies to Greece and there will be the tragedy of starvation. We are trying to get food into Greece. With the help of the Red Cross some supplies have been sent in, but they are pitifully small and they will not be enough if the present situation continues


much longer. A population of 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 in Athens will be faced by the serious threat of starvation and disease. The rest of Greece is in great need of supplies which cannot reach there because of the present disturbed conditions. So, we shall use all the means at our disposal to try to bring this conflict to an end. We shall use all the means at our disposal to ensure that this conflict is not made the excuse for a lasting vendetta, either of the Right against the Left, or of the Left against the Right, and that when the conflict is over neither side shall be allowed to try to eliminate the other. Our aim is to maintain law and order and establish a Greek Government broadly representative of all opinion in Greece, including E.A.M., and enable that Government to establish its authority throughout the country. Our desire is to see such a Government re-formed at the earliest possible date. The first task of that Government will be to get relief going again, and food for their people. The second task will be to organise a free and fair election. If our help is needed it will be available, and if our Allies will come and help that help will be valuable. We ask nothing of the Greeks. It is our wish to bring our troops away as soon as is practically possible. We only ask that order shall be established so that the people shall be fed with supplies, the greater part of which we have ourselves collected. This is an unhappy phase in Anglo-Greek relations. I hope that this chapter will soon be closed, that there will be once again that friendship in which we have taken a pride and that the Greek people and our own people will be united together.

It being Six o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S, L. Young.]

Orders of the Day — PLAYS (CENSORSHIP)

6.1 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I desire to raise the question of the censorship of plays. Perhaps it will form a not unfitting epilogue to a Debate which has had its moments of drama. I hope the House will not regard this as frivolous. I hope, too,

to be able to show that it has a practical relevance to the great national struggle in which we are now engaged. I confess I am not in favour of the censorship of plays. I consider that the public is as amply protected, and even better protected, under the common law; but I am sufficiently realistic to appreciate that the censorship of plays, like the poor, or the Germans, will always be with us. What I am concerned to show is that it would operate far better and far more equitably under a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament. The censorship of a creative art must always be repugnant to a freedom-loving society, but it is only tolerable at all if it keeps pace with the natural growth and development of the art in question. If it takes a retrograde step, if it starts forbidding something to-day, which it permitted yesterday, and which still holds the field, as it were, and cannot be withdrawn from circulation, then the situation becomes chaotic.
The story that I have to tell the House is one which has some public and private interest. Some months ago there died in London an American citizen, a great personal friend of mine. His name was Hayes Hunter. He was connected with the theatre and the film industry, but the main pre-occupation of his life, in fact I think I might call it his ruling passion, was the promotion of better Anglo-American relations; and this not merely since the war. All the time that I knew him—and that is the last ten or twelve years—he was constantly returning to the theme and deploring the fact that not enough people here or in the United States realised that the future happiness of mankind very largely depended upon the most close and cordial relationships between our two peoples. That he was sincere is exemplified by a touching little incident. He travelled a great deal between London and New York, and used to wear an identity disc round his wrist attached to a chain bracelet. When this was removed after his death, the reverse side of the disc was found to be engraved with the words, "An American who loved England."
Now, it so happens that a couple of years ago Mr. Monckton Hoffe, who will be well known to the House as an English dramatist of great distinction, wrote a small play, which was broadcast over one of the larger radio networks of the United States. It was called "Mr. Lincoln


Meets a Lady," and the two principal characters were President Lincoln and Queen Victoria. Now, since, as a matter of history, these two never met in life, the play was cast as a kind of dream fantasy. It is a work of great skill and charm. Needless to say, these two eminent personages were drawn with sympathy, with discretion and with delicacy. There is almost a Barriesque touch about it. It was received with the greatest appreciation and applause in the United States. It was, in fact, a phenomenal success. It was a play which definitely furthered, and was designed to further, the betterment of Anglo-American relations. Mr. Hayes Hunter, who was in New York at the time, promptly commissioned Mr. Hoffe to write a stage play from his radio script. Mr. Hoffe devoted a considerable time to this work and eventually delivered his play.
Here the trouble began. Mr. Hayes Hunter submitted it to the censor and a licence was refused. Mr. Hunter went down to Windsor Castle to interview the Censor's Office, but they were adamant. He asked them if there was anything objectionable or offensive in the play, and they said "Nothing whatever," but it was the policy of the present Lord Chamberlain to veto all plays in which Queen Victoria figured. And this in spite of the fact that there have been a score of plays and films in which Queen Victoria has figured as the chief character. I need only remind the House of the many one-act plays written by Mr. Laurence Housman, some of which were strung together to make up the successful play "Victoria Regina," which ran for some months in the West End of London several years ago. The policy of the then Lord Chamberlain——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid, in some difficulty. If he is going to make reference to the Lord Chamberlain's authority that does not come within the purview of this House, as there is no Minister responsible.

Mr. Smith: I am not criticising the Lord Chamberlain. I am criticising the function of the censorship of plays at the present moment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, and the Lord Chamberlain is the authority with regard to the censorship of plays?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not competent for an hon. Member to argue, either that the Lord Chamberlain ought not to be the authority on plays, or that there should be a better authority, or that he should be subject to a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty, because it is not competent to discuss in this House the functions of a Court official, which is a matter of the Prerogative. Therefore, it is not competent to discuss the censorship of plays by the Lord Chamberlain. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing that an alteration should be made and that some Minister should be responsible, that would be a matter for legislation, and again cannot be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate what you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not mention the Lord Chamberlain again in the course of my speech. I will talk simply of the censorship of plays. As regards the question of legislation, perhaps when I have diagnosed the disease and come to propound a cure, it may convince you that it will not need legislation to do what I suggest.
To come back to the particular incident. Mr. Hunter was perplexed and distressed by the official attitude. He came to see me an I tried to make him understand that British administration is not always governed by the laws of logic. Nor is it always susceptible to the dictates of reason. Nevertheless, he begged me to do something; if I could, to throw some light on the subject. Before I could take any action, however, Mr. Hunter died suddenly, and the matter was temporarily shelved. Now, however, it is the wish of Mr. Hunter's executors to present this play, and they have accordingly approached me again. This point may be of some interest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in view of your recent observations. I, in my turn, approached the Home Secretary, with a view to putting down a Question to him upon this specific issue. He referred me to the Prime Minister's Department. There they told me that if I would put down my Question to the Home Secretary I should be vouchsafed an answer. So I got out my Question, but I could not get it accepted at the Table. All I could do was to put down a Question on the general


issue and then use as an illustration the specific case which I wished to bring up. I think that recital will serve to show the difficulty, which you underlined—and I thank you for doing so—in the way of any Parliamentary action on any aspect of this rather vexed question. I do not wish to put my case too highly. All I am saying is that if a dramatist was allowed to show Queen Victoria on the stage in the 1930s, always provided that there was no offence and no wounding of living susceptibilities, there can be no ground for reversing that decision in the 1940s.
I maintain that there must be a precedent in these matters. In 1886 the then censor was, I understand, much exercised in his mind as to whether he could pass the title of the famous Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Ruddigore."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is apparently criticising the present administration of the censorship, but that is a matter for the Lord Chamberlain, and it is not competent for us to discuss his administration in this House. I am, therefore, afraid that I must rule the hon. Gentleman out of Order, unless he has any relevant observations to offer.

Mr. Smith: I am emphatically not criticising any action of the Lord Chamberlain. All I am doing is to recite the facts in one particular case and that does not necessarily imply any criticism.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. Magnay: On a point of Order. As a mere back bencher it is very interesting to me to inquire how it is that this Adjournment notice and this discussion ever came into the purview of this half-hour at all. There must have been a Question which was within the Rules of Order. Otherwise, why should the hon. Member be put to this trouble and expense, and this time and labour, and why should the Minister in charge be prepared to come here to give an answer?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: As the Question appears to have been put to the Home Secretary, and an answer, I understand, was given, may I ask whether the Home Secretary was out of Order? Did the Question definitely ask for legislation? I thought the hon. Mem-

ber was raising a specific illustration, which is now being continued in an Adjournment Debate.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps I might explain that I evolved a Question, which I showed to the Home Secretary, and I asked him whether he would be prepared to answer it. He read the Question, and referred me to the Prime Minister's Department, but no actual Question was put on the Paper on the subject, except the one Question on the general issue, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider placing the censorship of plays under the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The position is perfectly clear from the hon. Gentleman's Question. He asked the Prime Minister
whether he will consider making provision whereby the censorship of plays may be transferred to a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 525.]
That would be a matter for legislation, and therefore the Question cannot be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: My hon. Friend has disclaimed any intention of criticising the conduct of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and is trying to discuss a transfer of functions. With great respect does it follow that a transfer of functions would need legislation? I should have thought it could have been done by an administrative act, and that therefore my hon. Friend might be in Order.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would it not be possible for the Minister to issue an Order under the Emergency Powers Act, to have an Order in Council made, and will it not therefore be in Order for the hon. Member to plead that this is a matter of such general interest and importance in making for good relations between ourselves and America that it might be worth consideration?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The intention is for Orders in Council to relate only to matters arising out of the war. I am afraid this cannot be regarded as strictly within that category.

Mr. Smith: May I put one question? You say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that legislation would be necessary if this


transfer were to take place. May I submit to you a possibility in which it is conceivable that no legislation would be necessary? At the present time this is a Royal Prerogative. Let us suppose that His Majesty chooses to divest himself of this particular Royal Prerogative and hand it to the Home Secretary for the time being. Would that necessarily require legislation?

Mr. Lindsay: May I suggest that there has been set up a Ministry of Information with a foreign section and in the United States there is the British Information Service? We have heard evidence from my hon. Friend that this proposal would help to make for better relations with the United States, one of our greatest Allies in the war, and I suggest that what he proposes could be done by an administrative act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had gone back to the 19th century and was envisaging a permanent alteration of the law, which would be a matter for legislation. He has also mentioned the Royal Prerogative, which is clearly not discussable by this House.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): May I put this on record? My hon. Friend has made some statements to which I can reply, but I am now, under the Rules of Order, to be deprived of any opportunity. I should not like it to go out, through some misunderstanding owing to the Rules of Order, that a reply cannot be made.

Mr. Smith: I should strongly object to my hon. Friend replying until I had finished my speech.

Professor Savory: I think it would be strictly relevant were I to add a few words of my experience of censorship in France. It is relevant, because it is a very strict comparison. The French people have had——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This House is even less responsible for censorship in France.

6.18 p.m.

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: This episode illustrates a point I have made year after year about Private Members' time. I recently asked

for a modest concession from the Government for Private Members to be allowed to have Bills printed, and was told "Look at the glorious opportunities you have every day on the Adjournment." That is good enough if one wants to criticise; but, if one wants to create anything, one is hamstrung by this ridiculous rule about not being able to suggest the smallest thing which may conceivably involve legislation. I think it is a very bad rule, and that it puts us in a very difficult position. I have nothing against the Lord Chamberlain, but I want to place on record, and I hope the representatives on the Front Bench will take this complaint to the Government from Private Members, that we are hamstrung when we try to take advantage of what opportunities we have.

6.20 p.m.

Professor Savory: On a point of Order. It is really your Ruling, Sir, that it is not relevant, for the purposes of comparison, to discuss the history of the censorship in France? Has it not a very strong bearing on this Debate? It is a matter to which I have devoted a lifetime of study, and I should like to have said something about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said that the argument of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) is out of Order, and discussion on the lines which the hon. Member has now suggested would also be out of Order.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I want to protest against this waste of the time of Members of this House. It ought to have been discovered earlier that this matter was out of Order; and the time spent on the preparation of speeches, on a subject very germane to relations between us and America, could have been saved. This is not respectful to Private Members, and I hope that the Whip who is present will take note of this protest by ordinary Members who have been simply fooled.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: You have ruled out, quite properly, if I may say so, with respect, Sir, that a subject requiring legislation cannot be raised; but the case put forward by my hon. Friend was known in advance, and we have a gentleman on the Treasury


Bench prepared to answer it. It is germane for us back-benchers to inquire how it comes about that the Government are represented here, on a matter which, from its inception, was completely out of Order. Was it not incumbent upon the Government, in the first place, to draw your attention to the fact that the subject was completely out of Order, and not to put the onus, with all respect, upon you, and then to get up and say, "We are prepared, if we have the opportunity, to answer the case"? I want to make my protest, not against your Ruling, but against this equivocal attitude on the part of the Treasury Bench.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I think I could perfectly well make a speech which is in Order. I could give the House a history of how the censorship came into the hands of the Lord Chamberlain, and how it is operated to-day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In view of what has been said, I doubt if such a discussion would be in Order.

6.24 p.m.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I think, with great deference, Sir, that we shall be in Order if we discuss the censorship of films, which comes under the Board of Trade. I have a complaint concerning the censorship of films. Ever since the film censorship came into being the censor, for some reason, has always been a Roman Catholic. I personally have been affected by that. I wrote a book—a very good book—called "Holy Deadlock," concerning divorce. It was a perfectly decent book, a constructive book, giving an elaborate account of all sorts of legal operations. I had some idea——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not clear about the responsibility for this matter, but I think the censorship of films is a voluntary one now.

Petty-Officer Herbert: It comes under the purview of the Board of Trade. If

you are not certain, you should have the benefit of the doubt. Ever since the film censorship was established, the censor has always been a Catholic. I wrote a book called "Holy Deadlock," which was submitted for film treatment, but it has always been turned down by this Catholic censor.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that matter is not in Order, and I must rule the hon. and gallant Gentleman out of Order. The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench has spoken more than once, but, if the House gives him permission——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Grimston: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? We are discussing Rules of Order upon the Motion for the Adjournment, and you said just now, Sir, that you thought I could not be in Order on this Debate. May I ask you if an account of the history of this censorship, under what Acts of Parliament it came about, and how it has been reviewed by this House from time to time, would be in Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the original Question was not in Order, it does not seem to me that the discussion of its history will make it any more in Order.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Further to that point of Order. If it is in Order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Act of Parliament under which the censorship is established and so forth, surely it is in Order for me to refer to the censorship?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I must rule against the hon. Member.

Mr. Magnay: Is not that against an axiom which I learned 50 years ago or more—that the greater contains the less?

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes past Six O'clock.